LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS · PDF fileLAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS...

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY

AGENDA

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 31315 Chaney Street

Lake Elsinore, California 92531 951.674.3146 (EVMWD) / 951.354.4240 (LESJWA)

Thursday, December 17, 2015 – 4:00p.m.

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Chair Robert Magee)

ROLL CALL: __SAWPA, __EVMWD, __City of Lake Elsinore, __City of Canyon Lake, __County of Riverside

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Members of the public may address the Board on any item that is within the Board’s jurisdiction; however, no action may be taken on an item appearing on the agenda unless theaction is otherwise authorized by Subdivision (b) Section 54954.2 of the Government Code.Members of the public are requested to provide a public comment notice card to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting in order to speak. The public is given a maximum of five minutes to speak on an issue following discussion of an agenda item. ______________________ ______

Materials related to items on this Agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet, are available to the public during regular business hours at the Authority’s office: 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503.

Any person with a disability who requires accommodation in order to participate in this meeting may contact Dawna Munson at 951.354.4247, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a disability-related modification.

CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and non-controversial, to be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. If a Board member, staff member, or interested person requests that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar, the request will become the first item of business on the agenda.

1.0 MINUTES…………………………………………………………………………………...….....3

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held October 29, 2015.

1.1 TREASURER'S REPORTS……………………………………………………………..……….7

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file financial statements from September and October 2015.

1 .2 EDUCATION & OUTREACH COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT…………………....19 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file a status report from the Education and Outreach Committee meeting held on November 2, 2015 and the DeGrave Communications Quarterly Activity Report.

End of Consent Calendar

1

LESJWA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda December 17, 2015

2.0 REPORT ON AUDIT (Memo 779)…………………………………………………………………………………..…49 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the FY 2014-15 Report on Audit prepared by White Nelson Diehl Evans

LLP, and direct staff to file the Report on Audit with respective government agencies as required by law.

3.0 LAKE & WATERSHED MONITORING PROGRAM CHANGE ORDER (Memo 780)…….......……........91 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Task Order No. AMEC160-01 with AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. for an amount not-to-exceed $31,500.

4.0 LAKE ELSINORE & CANYON LAKE NUTRIENT TMDL REVISION AGREEMENT (Memo 781)……...99 RECOMMENDATION: Approve a General Services Agreement and Task Order No.CDM160-01 with CDM Smith for an amount not-to-exceed $300,000 to initiate the effort to Revise and Update Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDLs.

5.0 LAKE ELSINORE & CANYON LAKE NUTRIENT TMDL INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT (Memo 782)………………………………………………………………………………………………......119 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file a draft outline for the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report.

6.0 FUTURE CANYON LAKE ALUM APPLICATION CEQA (Memo 783)……………………………….........123 RECOMMENDATION: Ratify the Dec. 2, 2015 CEQA approval of future Canyon Lake Alum Applications, and file a Notice of Determination to continue alum dosing in Canyon Lake and continue to use Proposition 84 grant funds.

7.0 LAKE ELSINORE/CANYON LAKE TMDL TASK FORCE (Memo 784)…………………………..........…..155 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file a status report on the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force.

8.0 ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS

9.0 DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS

10.0 ADJOURN

NEXT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING: Thursday, Feb. 18, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.

2016 Meeting Schedule February 18

Apri l 21 June 16

August 18 October 20 December15*

(*as business d ic t a t es )

2

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

OF THE LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY

October 29, 2015

DIRECTORS PRESENT REPRESENTING Robert Magee, Chair City of Lake Elsinore Phil Williams Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Vicki Warren City of Canyon Lake Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside Brenda Dennstedt Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

OTHERS PRESENT Steve Horn County of Riverside Jason Uhley Riverside County Flood Control & WCD Nancy Horton EVMWD Nicole Dailey City of Lake Elsinore Liselle DeGrave DeGrave Communications

LESJWA STAFF Mark Norton LESJWA/Authority Administrator Dawna Munson LESJWA Board Clerk

The Regular Board of Directors meeting of the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority was called to order at 4:10 p.m., by Chair Robert Magee at the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, located at 31315 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore, California. Chair Magee asked for roll call. Representation from all five member agencies was duly noted by the Clerk.

Chair Magee asked if there were any comments from members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within its jurisdiction. There were no public comments.

1.0: CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Magee presented the Consent Calendar for review and approval.

2015/10-1 MOVED, approval of the Consent Calendar including the Minutes from the June 18, 2015 Board Meeting, and the Treasurer’s Reports from June-August 2015.

Result: Approved Unanimously (5-0) Motion/Second Jeffries/Williams Ayes: Dennstedt, Jeffries, Magee, Warren, Williams Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

2.0: Canyon Lake Alum Application Status Report(Memo #775) Mark Norton provided a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the status of the Canyon Lake alum application project, noting that we have reached the conclusion of the pilot scale process of 2-1/2 years. He discussed the challenges of algae blooms, the fish kills, and the nutrients carried from the upper watershed to the lake. He reviewed the Federal Clean Water Act timeline and the responsible stakeholders as determined by the

3

RWQCB; the evaluations and studies of the TMDL such as how the big storm events drive the water quality conditions; the watershed controls, the alum treatment; and the additional projects. He next discussed the Canyon Lake alum project overview—the treatment, goals, costs, monitoring, and grant received, and displayed photos of the alum delivery and dispersion along shore.

He noted that the contractor, AquaTechnex, has been very proactive and also had set up a blog to keep residents informed and provide tracking. He displayed the monitoring locations; discussed safety and effectiveness as to alum dosage levels, which remain far below toxic levels for invertebrates, fish, fauna and humans. He next discussed pre and post monitoring results of soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations; discussed controlling the phosphorus resuspension in the lake bottom, the algae concentrations, and showed a satellite assessment from July 2015. September was the last application for the pilot project. The sampling has been done and we should have the results soon.

Mr. Norton last discussed the local media coverage and shared a news article and the positive quotes from local residents as reported in August to Councilmember Vicki Warren. He reviewed the next steps of continuing the alum applications using Prop 84 IRWM Round 2 funds, and preparing an alum effectiveness report. He showed the draft video underway by the LESJWA Education and Outreach Consultant, DeGrave Communications.

Director Williams noted that there was a lot of positive activity; however, there still are some concerns regarding the brown algae and how to handle that now that the green algae have been addressed. Discussion ensued about having enough time to do the sampling; potentially deferring the spring 2016 application; that there’s no guarantee that the brown algae will be seen from now on as there are over 100 species of algae and we are changing the chemistry in the lake.

Director Williams stressed the importance of receiving the alum effectiveness report. Discussion ensued on the next application dates and whether we’d have an in-depth analysis by the consultant prior to the next application, as it would help to have the report as soon as possible in order to have more information on the many algae species before the next application. Further discussion ensued regarding how to get Canyon Lake off the impaired water body list, and that it’s a 10-year controlling average. Jason Uhley addressed the Board and explained that there are multiple targets for the lake – chlorophyll and DO targets. We don’t know that we’ve fully achieved the DO targets. It’s a two-step process to delist, and it’s hoped that going through the TMDL revision process will help with that.

Director Williams asked who pays for future alum applications after grant funds are exhausted. Mark Norton replied that ultimately the stakeholders pay for it unless we get another grant. It may be that we don’t need to do the application twice a year. It may be a long term maintenance strategy in order to maintain the TMDL requirements. Discussion ensued about the projections for the continuation of the alum applications, and that theoretically the phosphorus suspension should be reduced; however, storm events will affect that. Director Williams recommended holding off on the next application until we see the report.

Director Warren commented that she has received many reports of how it’s an amazing change, and she’s seen it herself and believes it’s the right course of action. She asked if the report might be ready by the February meeting. Mark Norton said that it has taken some time for Dr. Noblet to share his water quality results, working through the University system. If we have an El Niño season as expected, we may not want to do the February alum application. We also have the Technical Advisory Committee who will review timing, dosage, and other logistics before moving forward on the next alum application.. Director Williams said we should push to get the report because it’s important to everyone, and we don’t know how the El Niño storms will play out.

2015/10-2 MOVED, approval to receive and file the status report on the Canyon Lake alum application status.

4

Result: Approved Unanimously (5-0) Motion/Second Williams/Jeffries Ayes: Dennstedt, Jeffries, Magee, Warren, Williams Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

3.0: AquaTechnex Alum Application Change Order (Memo #776) Mark Norton said much of this has been discussed previously. This change order request is for the continuance of the Canyon Lake alum dosing using AquaTechnex. We still have grant money available and don’t want to lose that. Staff recommends approval of a change order with AquaTechnex—that we have it ready in hand for when it’s the appropriate time to move forward.

2015/10-3 MOVED, approval of Change Order No. 1 to Task Order No. AQUA160-01with AquaTechnex LLC for additional alum applications to Canyon Lake using remaining SAWPA/DWR Proposition 84 IRWM Grant funding.

Result: Approved Unanimously (5-0) Motion/Second Dennstedt/Williams Ayes: Dennstedt, Jeffries, Magee, Warren, Williams Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

4.0: Lake Elsinore Lake Watch and Status Report (Memo #777) Mark Norton introduced Nicole Dailey with the City of Lake Elsinore. Ms. Dailey said Dr. Michael Anderson of UCR had conducted a fish survey on Lake Elsinore and found the lake to be in poor ecological condition due to the drought and higher temperatures, and that a fish kill was likely. Ultimately, the fish kills are nature’s way of rebalancing the lake, but The City of Lake Elsinore wanted to have a way to prepare for it and mitigate some of that. They partnered with LESJWA to proactively prepare for a fish kill. They sought to create awareness of the lake’s vulnerability, the reasons for the fish kills, the overall ecology of the lake, and the successful projects to date. They sought community and volunteer support, partnering with community members, resource agencies, and businesses, and were able to execute quickly and effectively.

Ms. Dailey reviewed the Lake Watch Action Plan’s three stages of high alert, requests to the community, and reaching out to regional agencies for support. She discussed the community outreach strategies such as media outreach, website postings, and sending letters to shorefront property owners. There was a minor fish die off in August for one week with 23 tons of fish, and they were able to put the plan into action quickly. They removed the dead fish within a day. She discussed how they looked for patterns and trends in the DO levels; the successes of staff mobilization and engaging everyone’s support; and that they received positive media support and coverage. She last discussed future actions of ongoing monitoring, formalizing the plan including key messaging, ongoing collaboration, preparing for the El Niño season, and stocking more fish.

Director Williams said the Lake Watch action plan was fantastic in how they prepared and engaged the community. He commended the City and LESJWA for doing such a great job. Chair Magee echoed that and said how staff was committed to getting the job done. People who came to recreate weren’t impacted and the lake never closed. We’re going to learn from this and get even better.

2015/10-4 MOVED, approval to receive and file a report on the Lake Elsinore Lake Watch Program.

5


5.0: Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Status Report (Memo #773) Mark Norton provided an update on the Task Force activities. Briefly, they had a meeting on Tuesday, October 27. The group currently is in the midst of the monitoring program. They looked at what was needed and then were able to propose a scaled down program. The AMEC work is continuing on the Phase 2 nutrient TMDL compliance monitoring program, and the continuing work being done by Dr. Michael Anderson/UCR will help us provide strategy and improvements to the lakes. Efforts also continue on the O&M Agreement for the Lake Elsinore aeration system. There were some delays along the way and they will be meeting soon to work out some of the details.

As for the Canyon Lake effort, they’ve concluded the five alum applications. A work order was issued with Tom Dodson & Associates in order to continue the CEQA documentation. They’re currently proposing no changes to the alum dosage, but it does expand the alum application just north of the Canyon Lake causeway for a more thorough and effective application.

2015/10-5 MOVED, approval to receive and file the status report on the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force.


6.0: ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS None.

7.0: DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS Director Williams said if there were any questions or concerns about how he might respond to items, he invited LESJWA staff to contact him directly rather than going through EVMWD upper management.

As there was no further business, Chair Magee adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.

APPROVED: December 17, 2015 _____________________________________ Robert Magee, Chair

ATTEST: _____________________________________ Dawna Munson, Board Clerk

6

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITYCASH FLOW STATEMENT

AS OF 10/31/15

Balance as of 09/30/15 1,164,915.96$

Funds ReceivedDeposits: March JPA - TMDL Contribution 27,160.00 SAWPA - Member Contributions 10,000.00 LAIF Interest 600.69

Open - Grant InvoicesDWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 1 6,502.99$ DWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 2 2,019.94$ DWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 3 10,927.16$

19,450.09$ Open - Member & Other Contributions City of Menifee - TMDL Contribution 23,584.00$

23,584.00$

Total Due LESJWA 43,034.09$

Disbursement List - October 2015 (148,278.24)

Funds Available as of 10/31/15 1,054,398.41$

Funds Available:Checking 44,189.42$ LAIF 1,010,208.99$

Total 1,054,398.41$

7

Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Watersheds AuthorityLE/CL TMDL Invoice History

FYE 2009 ‐ 2016

Agency FY 2008‐09 FY 2009‐10 FY 2010‐11 FY 2011‐12 FY 2012‐13 FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 FY 2015‐16March ARB 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 35,226.00 25,176.00 CalTrans 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 28,656.00 26,072.00 City of Beaumont 2,957.00 3,940.00 4,719.53 3,900.00 1,865.00 19,263.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Canyon Lake 3,670.00 4,890.00 4,109.46 3,396.00 644.00 18,389.00 34,863.00 24,142.00 City of Hemet 22,308.00 29,723.00 27,460.77 22,696.00 6,286.00 18,175.00 25,510.00 27,958.00 City of Lake Elsinore 21,403.00 67,782.00 89,889.28 73,133.00 ‐ 19,381.00 30,580.00 32,463.00 City of Menifee ‐ ‐ 24,752.77 20,458.00 23,649.00 44,155.00 55,821.00 23,584.00 City of Moreno Valley 50,638.00 67,469.00 63,546.31 52,520.00 15,425.00 103,565.00 113,058.00 17,750.00 City of Murrieta 2,006.00 2,673.00 786.96 650.00 ‐ 12,426.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Perris 15,000.00 19,985.00 20,060.94 16,580.00 5,752.00 18,869.00 26,739.00 29,050.00 City of Riverside 2,071.00 2,759.00 3,587.28 2,965.00 1,575.00 17,641.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of San Jacinto 9,565.00 12,744.00 13,470.59 11,133.00 4,315.00 19,487.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Wildomar ‐ ‐ 4,668.93 3,859.00 4,461.00 8,307.00 19,528.00 26,460.00 County of Riverside 57,352.00 76,415.00 39,829.77 32,919.00 ‐ 30,165.00 36,469.00 30,362.00 Dept of Fish and Game 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 18,435.00 28,840.00 Eastern Municipal Water District 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 16,225.00 23,525.00 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 13,656.00 57,460.00 75,294.20 61,070.00 ‐ 12,500.00 16,225.00 23,525.00 March JPA 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 24,485.00 27,160.00 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators * 159,074.00 ‐ ‐ 143,320.00 28,278.00 12,500.00 47,549.00 23,530.58 San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * 41,634.00 37,252.80 25,000.00 10,000.00 10,211.00 12,500.00 16,225.00 ‐ Total 451,334.00 433,092.80 447,176.79 508,599.00 167,711.00 429,823.00 642,714.00 497,061.58 Total Paid Contributions 451,334.00 433,092.80 447,176.79 379,290.00 167,711.00 429,823.00 642,714.00 473,477.58 Total Outstanding Contributions ‐ ‐ ‐ 129,309.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 23,584.00

8

Assets

Checking - US Bank $44,189.42L.A.I.F. 1,010,208.99Accounts Receivable 43,034.09

Total Assets $1,097,432.50

Liabilities

Accounts Payable 132,527.92Total Liabilities $132,527.92

Retained Earnings 738,871.80

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures $226,032.78

Total Net Assets $964,904.58

Total Liabilities and Net Assets $1,097,432.50

Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed AuthorityStatement of Net Assets

For the Four Months Ending Saturday, October 31, 2015

9

PeriodActual

YTDActual

AnnualBudget % Used

BudgetVariance

Revenues

State Grant Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $328,000.00 0.00% $328,000.00LAIF Interest 600.69 600.69 878.00 68.42% 277.31Member Agency Contributions 0.00 210,492.00 206,125.00 102.12% (4,367.00)Other Agency Contributions 0.00 386,569.58 435,375.00 88.79% 48,805.42Total Revenues $600.69 $597,662.27 $970,378.00 61.59% $372,715.73

Expenses

Salaries - Regular 7,012.55 25,830.96 58,286.86 44.32% 32,455.90Payroll Burden 2,938.26 10,823.17 24,421.83 44.32% 13,598.66Overhead 11,163.98 41,122.89 92,791.31 44.32% 51,668.42Audit Fees 0.00 4,150.00 5,500.00 75.45% 1,350.00Consulting - General 39,414.95 287,289.40 785,500.00 36.57% 498,210.60Legal Fees 43.75 218.75 1,500.00 14.58% 1,281.25Meeting & Conference Expense 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00% 100.00Shipping & Postage 0.00 10.29 50.00 20.58% 39.71Office Supplies 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00% 60.00Other Expense 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00% 50.00Insurance Expense 0.00 2,162.00 2,068.00 104.55% (94.00)Interest Expense 22.03 22.03 50.00 44.06% 27.97Total Expenditures $60,595.52 $371,629.49 $970,378.00 38.30% $598,748.51

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures ($59,994.83) $226,032.78 $0.00 0.00% ($226,032.78)

Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed AuthorityRevenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets

For the Four Months Ending Saturday, October 31, 2015

10

Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Watersheds AuthorityRevenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets by Project

For the Month Ending October 31, 2015

JPA TMDL BudgetAdministration Task Force Total Budget % Used Variance

RevenuesState Grant Proceeds ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 328,000.00$ 0.00% 328,000.00$ LAIF Interest 600.69 ‐ 600.69 878.00 68.42% 277.31Member Agency Contributions 100,000.00 110,492.00 210,492.00 206,125.00 102.12% (4,367.00) Other Agency Contributions ‐ 386,569.58 386,569.58 435,375.00 88.79% 48,805.42 Total Revenues 100,600.69$ 497,061.58$ 597,662.27$ 970,378.00$ 61.59% 372,715.73$

ExpendituresSalaries 8,686.03$ 17,144.93$ 25,830.96$ 58,286.86$ 44.32% 32,455.90$ Benefits 3,639.45 7,183.72 10,823.17 24,421.83 44.32% 13,598.66 G&A Allocation 13,828.17 27,294.72 41,122.89 92,791.31 44.32% 51,668.42 Audit Fees 4,150.00 ‐ 4,150.00 5,500.00 75.45% 1,350.00 Consulting 11,398.75 275,890.65 287,289.40 785,500.00 36.57% 498,210.60 Studies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Other Contract Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Legal Fees 218.75 ‐ 218.75 1,500.00 0.00% 1,281.25 Project Construction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Meeting & Conference Expense ‐ ‐ ‐ 100.00 0.00% 100.00Office Expense ‐ ‐ ‐ 110.00 0.00% 110.00Board Compensation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Other Expense ‐ 10.29 10.29 50.00 20.58% 39.71Insurance Expense 2,162.00 ‐ 2,162.00 2,068.00 104.55% (94.00)Interest Expense 22.03 ‐ 22.03 50.00 44.06% 27.97Total Expenditures 44,105.18$ 327,524.31$ 371,629.49$ 970,378.00$ 38.30% 598,748.51$

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures 56,495.51$ 169,537.27$ 226,032.78$ ‐$ 100.00% (226,032.78)$

Cash Balance @ 10/31/15 99,992.85$ 954,405.56$ 1,054,398.41$

11

Check # Check Date Type Vendor Check Amount

1026 10/08/2015 CHK Aklufi and Wysocki $175.001027 10/08/2015 CHK Regents of the Univ of Calif $13,634.261028 10/08/2015 CHK AquaTechnex LLC $100,710.001029 10/08/2015 CHK Amec Foster Wheeler Environment $9,691.77

EFT026 10/16/2015 CHK Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority $18,641.75EFT027 10/22/2015 CHK Risk Sciences $3,046.71EFT028 10/22/2015 CHK DeGrave Communications $2,378.75

Total Disbursements October 2015 148,278.24$

Lake Elsinore San JacintoWatersheds Authority

DisbursementsOctober 31, 2015

12

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITYCASH FLOW STATEMENT

AS OF 09/30/15

Balance as of 08/31/15 1,032,777.05$

Funds ReceivedDeposits: City of Moreno Valley - TMDL Contribution 17,750.00 City of Beaumont - TMDL Contribution 26,866.00 City of Riverside - TMDL Contribution 26,866.00 CA Dept of Transportation - TMDL Contribution 26,072.00 EVMWD - Member Contributions 20,000.00 March Air Reserve Base - TMDL Contribution 25,176.00 City of Lake Elsinore - TMDL Contribution 32,463.00 County of Riverside - Member Contributions 20,000.00

Open - Grant InvoicesDWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 1 6,502.99$ DWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 2 2,019.94$ DWR - Prop 84 Grant - Inv 3 10,927.16$

19,450.09$ Open - Member & Other Contributions City of Menifee - TMDL Contribution 23,584.00$ SAWPA - Member Contributions 10,000.00$ March JPA - TMDL Contribution 27,160.00$

60,744.00$

Total Due LESJWA 80,194.09$

Disbursement List - September 2015 (63,054.09)

Funds Available as of 09/30/15 1,164,915.96$

Funds Available:Checking 155,307.66$ LAIF 1,009,608.30$

Total 1,164,915.96$

13

Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Watersheds AuthorityLE/CL TMDL Invoice History

FYE 2009 ‐ 2016

Agency FY 2008‐09 FY 2009‐10 FY 2010‐11 FY 2011‐12 FY 2012‐13 FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 FY 2015‐16March ARB 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 35,226.00 25,176.00 CalTrans 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 28,656.00 26,072.00 City of Beaumont 2,957.00 3,940.00 4,719.53 3,900.00 1,865.00 19,263.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Canyon Lake 3,670.00 4,890.00 4,109.46 3,396.00 644.00 18,389.00 34,863.00 24,142.00 City of Hemet 22,308.00 29,723.00 27,460.77 22,696.00 6,286.00 18,175.00 25,510.00 27,958.00 City of Lake Elsinore 21,403.00 67,782.00 89,889.28 73,133.00 ‐ 19,381.00 30,580.00 32,463.00 City of Menifee ‐ ‐ 24,752.77 20,458.00 23,649.00 44,155.00 55,821.00 23,584.00 City of Moreno Valley 50,638.00 67,469.00 63,546.31 52,520.00 15,425.00 103,565.00 113,058.00 17,750.00 City of Murrieta 2,006.00 2,673.00 786.96 650.00 ‐ 12,426.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Perris 15,000.00 19,985.00 20,060.94 16,580.00 5,752.00 18,869.00 26,739.00 29,050.00 City of Riverside 2,071.00 2,759.00 3,587.28 2,965.00 1,575.00 17,641.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of San Jacinto 9,565.00 12,744.00 13,470.59 11,133.00 4,315.00 19,487.00 24,280.00 26,866.00 City of Wildomar ‐ ‐ 4,668.93 3,859.00 4,461.00 8,307.00 19,528.00 26,460.00 County of Riverside 57,352.00 76,415.00 39,829.77 32,919.00 ‐ 30,165.00 36,469.00 30,362.00 Dept of Fish and Game 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 18,435.00 28,840.00 Eastern Municipal Water District 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 16,225.00 23,525.00 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 13,656.00 57,460.00 75,294.20 61,070.00 ‐ 12,500.00 16,225.00 23,525.00 March JPA 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13,050.00 12,500.00 24,485.00 27,160.00 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators * 159,074.00 ‐ ‐ 143,320.00 28,278.00 12,500.00 47,549.00 23,530.58 San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * 41,634.00 37,252.80 25,000.00 10,000.00 10,211.00 12,500.00 16,225.00 ‐ Total 451,334.00 433,092.80 447,176.79 508,599.00 167,711.00 429,823.00 642,714.00 497,061.58 Total Paid Contributions 451,334.00 433,092.80 447,176.79 379,290.00 167,711.00 429,823.00 642,714.00 446,317.58 Total Outstanding Contributions ‐ ‐ ‐ 129,309.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,744.00

14

Assets

Checking - US Bank $155,307.66L.A.I.F. 1,009,608.30Accounts Receivable 80,194.09

Total Assets $1,245,110.05

Liabilities

Accounts Payable 194,239.88Total Liabilities $194,239.88

Retained Earnings 738,871.80

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures $311,998.37

Total Net Assets $1,050,870.17

Total Liabilities and Net Assets $1,245,110.05

Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed AuthorityStatement of Net Assets

For the Three Months Ending Wednesday, September 30, 2015

15

PeriodActual

YTDActual

AnnualBudget % Used

BudgetVariance

Revenues

State Grant Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $328,000.00 0.00% $328,000.00LAIF Interest 0.00 0.00 878.00 0.00% 878.00Member Agency Contributions 0.00 210,492.00 206,125.00 102.12% (4,367.00)Other Agency Contributions 0.00 386,569.58 435,375.00 88.79% 48,805.42Total Revenues $0.00 $597,061.58 $970,378.00 61.53% $373,316.42

Expenses

Salaries - Regular 6,187.80 18,818.41 58,286.86 32.29% 39,468.45Payroll Burden 2,592.68 7,884.91 24,421.83 32.29% 16,536.92Overhead 9,850.98 29,958.91 92,791.31 32.29% 62,832.40Audit Fees 3,200.00 4,150.00 5,500.00 75.45% 1,350.00Consulting - General 139,493.54 221,903.69 785,500.00 28.25% 563,596.31Legal Fees 175.00 175.00 1,500.00 11.67% 1,325.00Meeting & Conference Expense 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00% 100.00Shipping & Postage 10.29 10.29 50.00 20.58% 39.71Office Supplies 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00% 60.00Other Expense 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00% 50.00Insurance Expense 0.00 2,162.00 2,068.00 104.55% (94.00)Interest Expense 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00% 50.00Total Expenditures $161,510.29 $285,063.21 $970,378.00 29.38% $685,314.79

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures ($161,510.29) $311,998.37 $0.00 0.00% ($311,998.37)

Lake Elsinore/San Jacinto Watershed AuthorityRevenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets

For the Three Months Ending Wednesday, September 30, 2015

16

Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Watersheds AuthorityRevenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets by Project

For the Month Ending September 30, 2015

JPA TMDL BudgetAdministration Task Force Total Budget % Used Variance

RevenuesState Grant Proceeds ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 328,000.00$ 0.00% 328,000.00$ LAIF Interest ‐ ‐ ‐ 878.00 0.00% 878.00Member Agency Contributions 100,000.00 110,492.00 210,492.00 206,125.00 102.12% (4,367.00) Other Agency Contributions ‐ 386,569.58 386,569.58 435,375.00 88.79% 48,805.42 Total Revenues 100,000.00$ 497,061.58$ 597,061.58$ 970,378.00$ 61.53% 373,316.42$

ExpendituresSalaries 6,210.26$ 12,608.15$ 18,818.41$ 58,286.86$ 32.29% 39,468.45$ Benefits 2,602.10 5,282.81 7,884.91 24,421.83 32.29% 16,536.92 G&A Allocation 9,886.74 20,072.17 29,958.91 92,791.31 32.29% 62,832.40 Audit Fees 4,150.00 ‐ 4,150.00 5,500.00 75.45% 1,350.00 Consulting 10,518.75 211,384.94 221,903.69 785,500.00 28.25% 563,596.31 Studies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Other Contract Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Legal Fees 175.00 ‐ 175.00 1,500.00 0.00% 1,325.00 Project Construction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Meeting & Conference Expense ‐ ‐ ‐ 100.00 0.00% 100.00Office Expense ‐ ‐ ‐ 110.00 0.00% 110.00Board Compensation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00% ‐Other Expense ‐ 10.29 10.29 50.00 20.58% 39.71Insurance Expense 2,162.00 ‐ 2,162.00 2,068.00 104.55% (94.00)Interest Expense ‐ ‐ ‐ 50.00 0.00% 50.00Total Expenditures 35,704.85$ 249,358.36$ 285,063.21$ 970,378.00$ 29.38% 685,314.79$

Excess Revenue over (under) Expenditures 64,295.15$ 247,703.22$ 311,998.37$ ‐$ 100.00% (311,998.37)$

Cash Balance @ 09/30/15 101,248.21$ 1,063,667.75$ 1,164,915.96$

17

Check # Check Date Type Vendor Check Amount

1024 09/18/2015 CHK Regents of the Univ of Calif 12,897.00$ 1025 09/18/2015 CHK Amec Foster Wheeler Environment 11,386.80$

EFT020 09/10/2015 CHK Haley & Aldrich Inc 2,300.50$ EFT021 09/10/2015 CHK Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 21,364.30$ EFT022 09/10/2015 CHK Weston Solutions Inc 2,554.00$ EFT023 09/18/2015 CHK Weston Solutions Inc 2,127.50$ EFT024 09/18/2015 CHK DeGrave Communications 3,756.25$ EFT025 09/24/2015 CHK Risk Sciences 6,667.74$

Total Disbursements September 2015 63,054.09$

Lake Elsinore San JacintoWatersheds Authority

DisbursementsSeptember 30, 2015

18

LESJWA Education and Outreach Committee Meeting Notes

November 1, 2015

Members Present: Mark Norton, Chair, SAWPA Nicole Dailey, City of Lake Elsinore Bonnie Woodrome, EVMWD Steven Horn, County of Riverside

Others Present: Liselle DeGrave, DeGrave Communications

Members Absent: Vicki Warren, City of Canyon Lake

1. Call to OrderMark Norton called the meeting to order at 12:10 pm at Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD),located at 31315 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore, California.

2. Additions/Corrections to the AgendaNone.

3. Approval of the Meeting NotesThe meeting notes from August 17, 2015 were reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Committee.

4. Lake LevelsLake Levels – The most current lake levels at Lake Elsinore are 1235.00 (October 26), and 1378.34’ at CanyonLake (October 26). The lake levels from the last meeting at Lake Elsinore were 1235.87 (August 10th) and CanyonLake at 1378.48 (August 12).

5. Project Status• Alum Application - results – Mark Norton gave an update about the alum application to Canyon Lake that

occurred on Sept. 21-25, 2015 by Aquatechnex. The alum application went well with no negative impacts.Water quality from the Sept. application has not been fully analyzed yet. Once it is completed, these data alongwith other data from previous applications will be evaluated as part of an effectiveness report for the overall2-½ year five application pilot alum application project. This report should be completed in early 2016 andwill provide guidance on additional areas of Canyon Lake for alum treatment such as above the San JacintoRiver causeway, any revisions to alum dosages and whether additional algacides or oxygen needs to be addedto allow the lake to meet the TMDL targets. On a preliminary basis, both the P and Chlorophyll A levels havedropped significantly for both the main body and East Bay with the main body of the lake now in compliance.It was stressed that the alum application is not a permanent fix but steady progress is being made insuppressing the resuspension of nutrient from the lake bottom. Further alum applications perhaps not at thesame application frequency are anticipated since nutrients are brought into the lake after every rain stormrunoff event from the upper San Jacinto River watershed.

• Dr. Anderson report – preliminary results – Mr. Norton reported that a presentation was made at the lastTMDL task force meeting by Dr. Anderson about his preliminary results. Overall his models of Lake Elsinoreshow that recycled water provides a very positive impact on water quality in the long term with the exceptionof TDS. Dr. Anderson indicated that he will do some additional model runs to determine the quantified benefitfrom various lake improvements such as the fish stocking, the aeration system, and carp removal. Ms. Daileysaid that the City of Lake Elsinore is very interested in hearing more details about what can be done toimprove the quality of the lake for fish stocking such as the quantify of fish, the preferred timing of stocking,types of fish and next steps.

1919

6. 2015-2016 PR Items

• Infographic Ms. DeGrave shared a draft 8 ½” x 11” inforgraphic with the Committee for review. The focus of the review comments was that the infographic should include more quantifiable metrics such as the amount of flow and nutrients entering the lakes, the amount of recycled water sent to Lake Elsinore, the amount of sediment removed from Canyon Lake, the number of projects undertaken, the amount of funding provided by the task force, the amount of grant funding received, et. Ms. DeGrave indicated that she would revise and prepare a new draft for our next meeting. It was also suggested that since the document would be posted on social media, it does not necessarily have to conform to the 8 ½” x 11” standard paper size particularly if she needed more room for this information.

• Video Revisions

Ms. DeGrave discussed the revisions that have been made to date on the previous main LESJWA video. She said the additional logos were added but asked for other revisions. Steve Horne asked that the County of Riverside logo be added. Mr. Norton said that the spelling on the watershed fly through also needs to be corrected.

• Alum Video

The draft Alum video was shared with the Committee. Overall everyone was very impressed. The committee suggested making a few minor tweaks regarding the spelling for “reservoir” on the fly thru of the watershed and removing the paddle depth section by the Canyon Lake resident. Liselle DeGrave had a few other edits she also wanted to slim it down. However, as further discussion progressed, many of the Committee felt that the video length was too long and should be more significantly cut for showing on social media sites like YouTube. Mr. Norton recommended that perhaps two versions could be prepared. One version that is close to its current length for viewing at the LESJWA Summit and others events and one for social media posting. Ms. DeGrave said she would look into what could be done working with the videographer, Ed Aguirre. Mr. Norton reported that the draft video was shown to the LESJWA Board last Thursday and they were all very impressed and had no suggested revisions

• Communication Plan Ms. DeGrave said that she now has finalized the LESJWA Communication Plan which incorporates all comments. Mr. Norton said he was pleased with the final product and would send it out.

• LESJWA Summit date - pending The Committee discussed possible time frames for the LESJWA Summit and agreed that it would be best to wait to April 2016. The timing was determined based on the timing of Dr. Anderson’s study results now in late December, briefing the Task Force on his results in January, elections of new task force agency governing board members in November, holiday season from Nov. –Dec and then determining the impacts of El Nino rain events, if they occur, on the lakes. The location of the Summit was also discussed and whether it was still appropriate. Liselle DeGrave said she would work with EMWD on some possible dates in April 2016.

7. Next Meeting Date The next LESJWA Education and Outreach Committee is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 1, 2016 at 12 noon at EVMWD Conference room.

20

1

Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Watersheds Authority Public Education and Outreach Program

Activity Report

July –November 2015

During the months of July-‐ November, DeGrave Communications conducted communication support for LESJWA, in accordance to the public education and outreach program contract set forth in the original proposal for services. The following includes a summary of all outreach efforts conducted on LESJWA’s behalf. 1. Communication / Media Relations Plan DeGrave Communications developed a communication and media relations plan specifically created for LESJWA. Recognizing the challenges that the Joint Powers Authority is currently facing in regards to water quality, funding and awareness have been identified, in addition to including solutions through outreach aimed at improving public education. Having a strong plan is the foundation for successful outreach to improve and maintain positive public perception.

21

2

2. Caynon Lake Algae Blooms – Media Outreach Following the discovery of the potentially harmful algae blooms in the east bay coves of Canyon Lake in early July, DeGrave Communcaitions immediately drafted a news release and pitched it to local media outlets. Lake Elsinore Patch was able to post story to their site. Additionally, Canyon Lake’s Friday Flyer was able to post information warning lake users about potential dangers.

22

4

3. Lake Watch 2015 Support Throughout the months of July and August, DeGrave Communications partnered with City of Lake Elsinore to provide services, on behalf of LESJWA, to support the Lake Watch 2015 campaign. With the unstable ecosystem in the Lake, in addition to the over abundance of Shad, the probability for a fish kill was high. All outreach efforts named LESJWA and the City of Lake Elsinore as partners for this campaign. Additionally, the Lake Watch 2015 volunteer form was posted to www.mywatersheds.com. A landing page with campaign information was posted on the LESJWA website as well. Additionally, DeGrave Communications utilized their graphic design services to create the campaign logo. Billboard design was created and coordinated by City of Lake Elsinore. DeGrave Communications worked with LESJWA and Lake Elsinore to draft and finalize a Fish Kill 2015 Q&A. Additionally, a news release prepping for a possible Stage 3 alert was created. Support included: • Graphic design of campaign logo • Wrote website text copy • Coordinated posting on EVMWD/ City of Elsinore Facebook pages • Drafted council PPT • Drafted lakefront home owner letters • Created/managed digital volunteer form • Drafted Lake Watch Q & A • Attendance at City of Lake Elsinore City Council meeting

24

8

4. Communication Support –Alum Treatment Outreach DeGrave Communications has supported LESJWA’s communication outreach, regarding the September alum treatment. Communication outreach included, attending Canyon Lake alum application coordination meeting, drafting/finalizing news release, drafting/finalizing public notice, editing alum fact sheets, coordinating social media postings of news release on stakeholder social media sites, creating alum workshop flyer and pitching media, attending Canyon Lake public workshop, pitching news media, coordinating and managing the alum video shoot. The video is now in its final version and will be posted to the LESJWA site in December. Following Dr. Anderson’s final report, the video will be used as a complimentary piece for media outreach. Additionally, the video can be shared on social media and used for future funding opportunities.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: August 31, 2015 Mark Norton

951-354-4221

Public Information Meeting Encourages Community Involvement Upcoming Canyon Lake alum application public information and outreach meeting welcomes community

Canyon Lake, CA – Over the past two and a half years, the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Task Force has made significant strides in improving water quality in Canyon Lake through an alum treatment application. The fifth and final application, of this initial program, will take place from September 21-24. A public information and outreach meeting will take place on September 9, at 7:00 p.m. at Canyon Lake City Hall in the Council Chambers. “Historically, Canyon Lake has been known to suffer from algae blooms. Because of nitrogen and phosphorus that enters the lake through water runoff, the lake suffers from an excess amount of nutrients. These nutrients encourage algae growth,” shared Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority administrator Mark Norton. “When the alum is added to the lake it immediately binds to the phosphorus, which reduces the opportunity for algae growth. ” The public information and outreach meeting is intended to serve as a community workshop with panel experts, including Dr. Michael Anderson from the University of California Riverside, who has been studying the effects of the alum treatments in Canyon Lake. Residents will find out more information on how the overall quality and clarity of the water has improved, in addition to asking questions. “The meeting is designed to encourage community involvement and keep Canyon Lake residents informed,” stated Ariel Hall, interim city manager. “We welcome residents to take an interest in what happens in Canyon Lake and hear more from the panel of experts.” Following the fifth alum treatment, a preliminary report will be compiled to suggest next steps in improving conditions in Canyon Lake. While algae cannot be entirely eliminated, the alum applications have been proven effective and possible future alum treatments will likely be suggested. Funding for the alum applications has been provided by a state grant and by the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Task Force, which consists of cities, the County of Riverside, agriculture and dairy coalitions and other organizations in the San Jacinto River watershed. Implementation of the alum project is being coordinated by the City of Canyon Lake, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, LESJWA, the TMDL Task Force and the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association.

LESJWA is a joint powers authority entrusted with state and local funds to improve water quality and wildlife habitats in Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake and the surrounding San Jacinto watershed. For more information about

LESJWA, please visit www.mywatersheds.com.

28

9

Canyon Lake Alum Application

Public Information & Outreach Meeting Wednesday, September 9, 2015

7-8 pm

Canyon Lake City Hall

Council Chambers 31516 Railroad Canyon Road

Canyon Lake, CA 92587

For more information please contact Mark Norton at (951) 354-4221 or [email protected]

• Welcome message from Canyon Lake Council Member Vicki Warren

• Recap of water quality regulations and need for lake improvement

• Review success from past four alum applications

• Panel of experts to include:

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE TO CANYON LAKE COMMUNITY Canyon Lake Alum Application Public Information and Outreach Meeting Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA), in partnership with City of Canyon Lake, invite members of the community to attend a public information and outreach workshop to better understand the fifth Canyon Lake alum application that will take place from September 21- 24. Attend to hear more information about the process, reasoning for applying alum and results from this past year’s applications from lake experts. A recap of water quality regulations and the need for lake improvement will also be addressed. Stormwater runoff carries with it high levels of nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus that hurt water quality and threaten marine life. In order to comply with water quality regulations enforced by the State through the local Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Task Force has been using a state-funded grant to continue alum water treatments in Canyon Lake. The TMDL Task Force evaluated several options during the CEQA process and determined that alum application provides the best option as a step to effectively treat the entire lake in a timely manner with minimal impact to Canyon Lake residents. MEETING INFORMATION: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 @ 7:00 p.m. City of Canyon Lake Council Chambers 31516 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, CA 92587 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Mark Norton, Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watershed Authority 951-354-4221 [email protected]

29

10

Canyon Lake Alum Treatment FAQs (cont.)

9. Will boats be allowed on the lake during the application?

A: Yes, but certain areas of the lake will be blocked off during the applications process, which should

last only a few hours. Boats will have full lake access immediately after the application process is

completed. 10. Will beaches be closed during the application? Will it be safe to swim?

A: Some areas might be briefly closed off during the alum application, but access will be open

immediately once the application process is completed. Swimmers will be able to safely enjoy the

lake immediately after the application process is complete.

11. Will fishermen be allowed to fish during the application? Are the fish safe to eat?

A: Yes, but certain areas of the lake will be blocked off during the applications process, which should

last only a few hours. Fishermen will have full lake access immediately after the application process

is completed. There is no negative affect on marine life as a result of the alum application.

12. Will there be any visual impacts with the water treatment?

A: No. In fact, Canyon Lake’s water clarity should improve immediately once the alum is applied.

13. When will the treatment begin? How long will it take?

A: Application began in September 2013, and continued with four additional treatments in Feb. 2014,

Sept. 2014 and Apr. 2015. The September application will be the last in this initial phase. A schedule

for future alum applications will be provided to Canyon Lake residents as soon as the details are

finalized. 14. Will the lake be tested after application?

A: Yes, post monitoring of the lake quality will occur after. A final report following this fifth

treatment will be shared with residents once results are known.

15. Can the material at the bottom of the lake become active again?

A: No, once the alum binds with the lake sediment it becomes inert and very stable.

16. How much will the water treatment cost?

A: The water treatment is being largely funded by a $500,000 grant awarded from the California

Department of Water Resources. The remaining funding needed will come from agencies in the

watershed responsible for meeting the lake water quality standards.

17. How will I be notified of upcoming water treatment activities in the future?

A: Regular updates will be posted to the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association and the Lake

Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority websites.

18. Is there a threat to Lake Elsinore when Canyon Lake overflows during high water levels?

A: No. By the time Canyon Lake water would reach Lake Elsinore, it would not contain alum since it

would have been bound to the lake sediment of Canyon Lake. Even under severe stormwater runoff

events, if Canyon Lake sediment were to be carried downstream in an overflow event, the alum

applied in Canyon Lake would remain inert and would have no effect on the downstream lake water

quality or habitat.

Canyon Lake Alum Treatment FAQs

1. Why is water treatment being conducted in Canyon Lake?

A: Stormwater runoff carries with it high levels of nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus that

hurt water quality and threaten marine life. In order to comply with water quality regulations enforced

by the State through the local Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Lake Elsinore &

Canyon Lake Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Task Force is going to be using a state-

funded grant to continue alum water treatment in Canyon Lake.

2. What is being used to treat the water in Canyon Lake?

A: The TMDL Task Force evaluated several options during the CEQA process and determined that

alum application provided the best option as a first step to effectively treat the entire lake in a timely

manner with minimal impact to Canyon Lake residents.

3. What is Alum?

A: Alum (aluminum sulfate) is one of the most common minerals found on earth and has been used

since Roman times for water purification. Alum is a common ingredient in cosmetics, antiperspirants,

toothpaste, bath salts and antacids. It is sold as a spice in most grocery stores.

4. How does alum reduce phosphorous?

A: Once alum has been added to the lake, it binds immediately with the phosphorous and effectively

removes the opportunity for algae to grow. With less algae in the water, light can penetrate deeper

into the lake - allowing plants to grow at the bottom while improving the overall health and water

quality of the lake.

5. Is alum safe for humans? Marine life?

A: Alum is a safe and effective method that has been used in many lakes across the country to

mitigate excess phosphorus in lakes and reservoirs according to the North American Lake

Management Society. Alum is a common ingredient in cosmetics, antiperspirants, toothpaste, bath

salts and antacids. The alum application will be well within safe levels as determined by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment, and the Center for Disease Control and will not impact humans or marine life.

6. Will alum affect the drinking water quality of Canyon Lake?

A: No. Aluminum concentrations in the lake itself will meet the PHG for aluminum in finished

drinking water within 24 hours following the alum application.

7. How will the alum be applied?

A: The alum will be injected directly into the lake off of boats in specific areas.

8. Will my use and access of the lake be impacted by the water treatment?

A: Recreational users will experience minimal disruption during treatment application and

implementation.

March�12,�2013�

DRAFT�

Page�2�of�4�

��6)� Californ

ia�has�not�yet�adop

ted�an�official�wat

er�quality�standard

�for�aluminum.��Howeve

r,�EPA�

has�approved�such�

standards�in�othe

r�western�states.

7 ��To�prevent�aquati

c�toxicity,�shortͲter

m�

exposure�to�alum

inum�should�not�exceed

�8.8�mg/L�and�prolonge

d�exposure�should

�not�

exceed�1.3�mg/L�where

�the�average�hardne

ss�is�approximately�200

�mg/L.8 ��Note:��a

luminum�

makes�up�only�10%�o

f�the�alum�product�

by�weight.��So,�wh

en�an�alum�dose�of�1

0�mg/L�is�

applied�to�the�lake,

�the�resulting�alum

inum�concentration�will

�be�only�1�mg/L.�

�7)� In�2004,�7

00,000�gallons�of�li

quid�alum�was�appl

ied�to�1,550�acres�o

f�Big�Bear�Lake�with

out�

any�adverse�effect

�to�fish,�aquatic�org

anisms,�birds�or�other�w

ildlife.��However,�Bi

g�Bear�did�

observe�a�90%�re

duction�in�Chloro

phyllͲa�(algae)�and

�90%�improvement�in�wa

ter�clarity�in�the�

month�following�the�

alum�application.

9 �

�8)� EPA's�Am

bient�Water�Quality�Criteri

a�for�Aluminum�is�freque

ntly�cited�to�suppo

rt�the�claim�

that�aluminum�may�be�tox

ic�to�aquatic�organi

sms�at�concentration

s�at�low�as�87�ppb.

��EPA's�

original�recommendatio

n�was�based�on�a�si

ngle�east�coast�stu

dy�where�water�ha

rdness�was�

exceptionally�low�

(<10�mg/L).10 ��At�the�ti

me�(1988),�EPA�did�n

ot�yet�have�sufficie

nt�data�to�

develop�appropri

ate�hardness�adjus

tments�like�those�rout

inely�applied�to�ot

her�trace�metals�

such�as�copper�and

�lead.��This�problem

�was�subsequentl

y�remedied�in�an�EPAͲfun

ded�study�

prepared�by�the�A

rid�West�Water�Quality�Resea

rch�Project�(AWWQRP)�in�M

ay�of�2006.11 ��

AWWQRP's�study�was�th

e�basis�for�the�new

�aluminum�standards�EPA�rec

ently�approved�in�

Colorado�and�Ne

w�Mexico.��Using�the�CO

/NM�method�to�adjust�for

�the�higher�hardnes

s�(>200�

mg/L)�routinely�seen

�in�Canyon�Lake�an

d�Lake�Elsinore,�the

�safe�level�of�aluminum�is�12Ͳ15x

�

higher�than�the�or

iginal�water�quality

�criteria�EPA�publis

hed�in�1988.��By�19

92,�when�the�

National�Toxics�R

ule�was�adopted,

�EPA�elected�to�ign

ore�the�1988�guida

nce�and�declined�to

�

establish�any�wate

r�quality�standard

�for�aluminum.1

2 ��EPA�made�the�same�decision

�when�the�

California�Toxics�

Rule�was�enacted

�in�2000.13 ��In�light�o

f�EPA's�recent�deci

sions�in�Colorado

�and�

New�Mexico,�the�1988�Water�Qual

ity�Criteria�document�shoul

d�no�longer�be�use

d�to�

characterize�the�r

isk�of�aluminum�toxicity�i

n�lakes�and�streams�with�rel

atively�high�hardn

ess.�

�

�

��

��

7 ��See,�for�example,�U.S.�E

PAͲRegion�VI�(Caro

l�L.�Campbell,�Asst.�Regiona

l�Administrator;�Office�o

f�Ecosystems�Protecti

on�

and�Remediation).��Letter�

to�Peter�Butler,�Cha

irman�of�the�Colorado

�Water�Quality�Contro

l�Commission�Approving�t

he�

2010�Revisions�to�t

he�Basic�Standard

s�and�Methodologies�for�

Surface�Water.��Aug

ust�4,�2011.��(Ref.:��

8EPRͲEP).��EPA�also

�

approved�a�similar�water

�quality�standard�fo

r�aluminum�in�the�state�of�New

�Mexico.�

8 ��Colorado�Dept.�o

f�Public�Health�and

�Environment�Ͳ�Water�Qual

ity�Control�Commission.��Re

gulation�No.�31:��B

asic�

Standards�and�M

ethodologies�for�

Surface�Water�(5�CC

R�1002Ͳ31).��See�Ta

ble�IV:�Table�Value

�Standards�for�Sele

cted�

Hardnesses.��Avai

lable�at:��http://w

ww.colorado.go

v/cs/Satellite/CD

PHEͲWQCC/CBON/125

1590910709�

9 ��GodwinͲSaad,�Erik

a.��Big�Bear�Lake�2

004�FullͲScale�Alum

�Application.��Final

�Report�to�the�Santa

�Ana�Regional�Water�

Quality�Control�Bo

ard.��Big�Bear�Municipal

�Water�District.��June,

�2005.��(See�pg.�8�a

nd�pg.�20)�

10 �Buckler,�D.R;�et�al

.��Influence�of�pH�o

n�the�toxicity�of�alu

minum�and�other�inorgan

ic�contaminants�to�

East�Coast�striped�

bass.��Water�Air�and�Soil�Po

llution.��Vo.�35,�No

.�1Ͳ2��(Sept.,�1987)��

pp.�97Ͳ106.�

11 �Arid�West�Water�Quality�Resea

rch�Project.��Evalua

tion�of�the�EPA�Rec

alculation�Procedu

re�in�the�Arid�West�Techn

ical�

Report.��May,�2006.

��The�same�highlyͲr

egarded�laborato

ry�that�prepared�th

e�AWWQRP�study�also�per

formed�the�recent�

toxicity�tests�for�alu

m�using�water�samples�colle

cted�from�Canyon�L

ake.��The�laborato

ry,�then�called�Cha

dwick�Ecological�

Consultants,�merged�wit

h�GEI,�Inc.�in�2006�

and�is�still�based�in

�Denver,�CO.�

12 ��U.S.�EPA.��57�Fed.

�Reg.�246,�60848��(

Dec.�22,�1992);��aka

�"National�Toxics�R

ule"�

13 ��U.S.�EPA.��65�Fed.

�Reg.�97,�31682��(M

ay�18,�2000);��aka�

"California�Toxics�

Rule"�

�

�

��

��

Proposed�Al

um�Application

s�Will�Not�Cause

�Toxicity�

to�Fish�or�Ot

her�Aquatic�O

rganisms�In�Ca

nyon�Lake�or

�Lake�Elsino

re�

�1)�

Aluminum�sulfate�(aka

�"Alum")�is�an

�EPAͲapprov

ed�pesticide

1 �commonly�used�th

roughout�th

e�

United�State

s,�including�C

alifornia,��to�

prevent�the

�growth�of�n

uisance�alga

e.��There�hav

e�been�

no�reported�

incidents�of

�fish�kills�or�

other�eviden

ce�of�aquatic

�toxicity�as�a

�result�of�the

se�lake�

restoration�

activities.

2 �

�2)�

When�applied�i

n�lakes,�alum

�rapidly�bind

s�with�phosp

horus�to�for

m�a�nonͲtoxic�

mineral�

particle�call

ed�aluminum�phosp

hate.��This�r

eaction�is�us

ually�complete�

within�a�few

�hours�and�

the�resulting

�particles�slo

wly�settles�t

o�the�bottom

�after�just�a�

day�or�two.�

�3)�

Initially,�the�

aluminum�phosphate�p

articles�form

�a�thin�layer�

only�1Ͳ2�mm�thick.

��Eventually,

�

the�particles

�are�incorpo

rated�back�i

nto�the�soil.

3 ��Aluminum�is�the

�third�most�ab

undant�

element�in�the�Ea

rth's�crust.

4 ��And,�each�

pound�of�lak

e�bottom�sedim

ent�already�c

ontains�

somewhere�betw

een�½�and�1

�ounce�of�alu

minum.�

�4)�

EPA�guidance

�indicates�th

at�aluminum�"is�su

bstantially�le

ss�toxic"�at�h

igher�pH�and

�hardness�

levels.�5 ��EPA�r

ecommends�that�sit

eͲspecific�tes

ts�be�perform

ed�to�evalua

te�the�poten

tial�toxic �

effects�of�al

uminum�for�waterbo

dies,�like�Ca

nyon�Lake�an

d�Lake�Elsino

re,�with�natu

rally�high�

pH�and�hard

ness.�

�5)�

Recent�labo

ratory�tests,

�using�sample�wa

ter�collected

�from�Canyon�Lake

,�showed�no�

evidence�

of�alumͲinduc

ed�toxicity�to

�fish�(Figures

�1�&�2)�or�in

vertebrate�o

rganisms�(Figu

res�3�&�4).

6 ��

These�toxici

ty�tests�were

�performed�usi

ng�sensitive�

freshwater�sp

ecies�recommended

�by�EPA.��

And,�the�lab

oratory�teste

d�aluminum�conce

ntrations�con

siderably�hig

her�than�tho

se�likely�to�

occur�as�a�re

sult�of�the�p

roposed�alu

m�application�

to�Canyon�La

ke.�

�

�

��

��

��

1 ��Federal�Ins

ecticide,�Fun

gicide�and�R

odenticide�A

ct�("FIFRA")�

�7�U.S.C.�§13

6�et.�seq.�(1

996);��CAS�#

10043Ͳ01Ͳ3�

http://iaspu

b.epa.gov/so

r_internet/r

egistry/subst

reg/searchan

dretrieve/ad

vancedsearc

h/externalSe

arch.do?p_t

ype=C

ASNO&p_va

lue=10043Ͳ0

1Ͳ3�

2 ��Dr.�Barry�M

oore�(Washing

ton�State�Un

iversity);��cit

ing�Cooke,�e

t�al,�in�Facts

�About�Lake

�Alum�Appli

cations�(App

endix�A);��

A�review�of�

the�scientifi

c�literature�p

repared�for�t

he�Big�Bear�

Municipal�Water�D

istrict.��2004

.�

3 ��Lamb,�D.S.�and�G

.C.�Bailey.��A

cute�and�chr

onic�effects�

of�alum�to�midge�la

rva.��Bulletin

�of�Environm

ental�Contam

ination�

and�Toxicolo

gy.��27(1):59

Ͳ67.��1981.��

4 ��See:��http:/

/en.wikiped

ia.org/wiki/A

luminium��citing�a�num

ber�of�indep

endent�sour

ces�stating�th

at�aluminum�comprises

�

approximately�8

0,000�ppm�(8%)�o

f�the�materia

l�making�up�the

�Earth's�solid

�crust.�

5 ��See:��http:/

/water.epa.

gov/scitech/

swguidance

/standards/c

riteria/curre

nt/index.cfm

��(U.S.�EPA's

�National�

Recommended

�Water�Quality�

Criteria;��Foo

tnote�S).��In�

context,�pH

�higher�than

�6.5�and�hard

ness�>�10�mg/L.�

6 ��GEI�Consult

ants,�Inc.�Ͳ�E

cological�Div

ision;�Denve

r,�CO.��Water�E

ffects�Ratio�

Study�for�Ca

nyon�Lake.��D

raft�3/6/13�

�

��

��

Summary�of�Key�Human�Health�Considerations�Related�to�Aluminum�Exposure��

1)� U.S.�EPA�has�not�established�a�Primary�Maximum�Contaminant�Level�(MCL)�to�regulate�aluminum�concentrations�in�drinking�water.��EPA�has�recommended�a�Secondary�MCL�to�prevent�excess�aluminum�in�drinking�water�from�causing�taste,�odor�or�staining�problems.1��The�Secondary�MCL�for�aluminum�is�0.05�to�0.2�mg/L.�

�2)� California's�Office�of�Environmental�Health�Hazard�Assessment�(OEHHA)�has�established�a�Public�Health�

Goal�(PHG)�of�0.6�mg/L�of�aluminum�in�finished�tap�water.2�And,�the�PHG�includes�a�100x�(10,000%)�safety�factor.�3�

�3)� The�World�Health�Organization�(WHO)�recommended�a�water�quality�guideline�of�0.9�mg/L�of�

aluminum�to�protect�human�health.��The�WHO�also�found�that,�even�among�water�utilities�that�use�alum�as�part�of�the�treatment�and�purification�process,�the�residual�aluminum�concentration�in�finished�tap�water�is�routinely�less�than�0.1�mg/L.4�

�4)� Aluminum�concentrations�in�Canyon�Lake,�immediately�following�alum�application,�will�be�

approximately�1.0�mg/L.��However,�the�alum�rapidly�binds�with�phosphorus,�becomes�inert,�and�settles�into�the�sediment.��Aluminum�concentrations�in�the�lake�itself�will�meet�the�PHG�for�aluminum�for�finished�tap�water�within�24�hours�following�the�alum�application.�

�5)� The�aluminum�phosphate�particles�that�form�immediately�after�alum�application�are�not�dissolvable�in�

water.3��Therefore,�any�stray�particles�that�did�not�settle�into�the�sediment�will�be�easily�removed�by�EVMWD's�current�filtration�system�before�the�water�from�Canyon�Lake�is�served�to�the�community.�

�6)� Alum�is�a�common�ingredient�in�cosmetics,�antiperspirants,�toothpaste,�bath�salts�and�antacids.��It�is�

sold�as�a�spice�in�most�grocery�stores.��The�U.S.�Center�for�Disease�control�estimates�that�the�average�person�already�consumes�approximately�10Ͳ20�mg/day�of�aluminum.5��Less�than�10%�of�the�average�person's�daily�intake�comes�from�drinking�water.��If�someone�were�to�drink�one�quart�of�lake�water�immediately�following�the�alum�application,�they�would�consume�one�extra�milligram�of�aluminum�that�day.��That�is�less�than�the�amount�of�extra�aluminum�they�would�ingest�by�taking�just�one�antacid�tablet�or�one�buffered�aspirin.��Were�that�same�person�to�drink�another�quart�of�lake�water�the�day�following�the�alum�application,�there�would�be�no�measureable�increase�in�their�total�aluminum�consumption�compared�to�their�normal�daily�average�intake�of�aluminum.�

��1�See�http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm�2�See�http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html�3�See�http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/Aluminumf.pdf��OEHHA.��Public�Health�Goal�for�Aluminum�in�Drinking�Water.��April,�2001�4�See�http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/aluminium/en/��WHO/HSE/WSH/10.01/13��(2010).�5�See��http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22Ͳc2.pdf�

Canyon Lake Alum Treatment Fact Sheet

Responsibility to Meet Federal Mandates for

Nutrient Levels

• Stormwater runoff carries with it high levels of nutrients including nitrogen and

phosphorus that hurt water quality and threaten marine life.

• In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency set specific guidelines to monitor nutrient levels, and these guidelines are known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). These guidelines are enforced as water quality regulations by the State through the local Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

• In our region, there is a TMDL Task Force of 20 agencies and organizations that are working together to make sure Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake stay healthy and that the TMDL water quality targets within the lakes are met.

• To help comply with current TMDL goals, the TMDL Task Force competitively applied for and has been awarded a $500,000 grant from the California Department of Water Resources to begin treatment measures to reduce nutrient levels and subsequent algae growth in the main lake and the East Bay of Canyon Lake.

Local Agencies Working

Together to Improve Water

Quality

• Since its inception, LESJWA has implemented successful clean-up measures over the

last decade to improve the water quality in the over 720-square mile San Jacinto watershed with an emphasis on Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore.

• LESJWA, in partnership with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and the TMDL Task Force, will be implementing the comprehensive treatment plan.

• The City of Canyon Lake is sponsoring the California Environmental Quality Act process on behalf of LESJWA to evaluate the environmental impacts of water treatment methods to meet TMDL goals in Canyon Lake.

Safe, Commonly-Used Treatment

for Lakes

• Alum, the method selected to provide the best results for Canyon Lake, has a proven

track-record of success and is safe to both humans and marine life.

• Drinking water quality will not be affected by any of the treatment options.

Minimal Impacts to Recreation

• Canyon Lake will remain open during the entire treatment process.

• Recreational users will experience little disruption during treatment application and implementation.

• LESJWA will work closely with EVMWD and the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association to ensure that residents are kept up to date about treatment schedule and activities.

��

�

��

The�Relationship�between�Aluminum�Exposure�and�Alzheimer's�Disease��

1)� Alzheimer's�Association�

"During�the�1960s�and�1970s,�aluminum�emerged�as�a�possible�suspect�in�Alzheimer's.��This�suspicion�led�to�concern�about�exposure�to�aluminum�through�everyday�sources�such�as�pots�and�pans,�beverage�cans,�antacids�and�antiperspirants.��Since�then,�studies�have�failed�to�confirm�any�role�for�aluminum�in�causing�Alzheimer's.��Experts�today�focus�on�other�areas�of�research,�and�few�believe�that�everyday�sources�of�aluminum�pose�any�threat."1�

�2)� Alzheimer's�Society�

"The�main�sources�of�aluminum�in�our�diet�include�tea,�beer,�baked�products,�drinking�water,�toothpaste,�aluminumͲbased�antacids,�aluminum�cookware�and�some�canned�beverages.��Aluminum�uptake�from�our�diets�is�usually�very�low,�with�more�than�99%�passing�through�the�digestive�track�unabsorbed…�Since�the�idea�that�the�metal�might�be�a�risk�factor�for�Alzheimer's�disease�was�first�proposed�there�have�been�numerous�conferences�on�aluminum�and�health.��The�medical�research�community,�international�and�government�regulatory�agencies�and�the�aluminum�industry�all�review�the�evidence�at�frequent�intervals.��The�overwhelming�medical�and�scientific�opinion�is�that�the�findings�do�not�demonstrate�a�convincing�causal�relationship�between�aluminum�and�Alzheimer's�disease,�and�that�no�useful�or�public�health�recommendations�can�be�made�at�present."2��

�3)� World�Health�Organization��(WHO)�

"The�conclusion�of�a�recent�Joint�Expert�Committee�on�Food�Additives�(JECFA)�evaluation�was�that�some�of�the�epidemiology�studies�suggest�the�possibility�of�an�association�of�Alzheimer�disease�with�aluminum�in�water,�but�other�studies�do�not�confirm�this�association…�All�studies�lack�information�on�ingestion�of�aluminum�from�food�and�how�concentrations�of�aluminum�in�food�affect�the�association�between�aluminum�in�water�and�Alzheimer's�disease…Taken�together,�the�relative�risks�for�Alzheimer's�disease�from�exposure�to�aluminum�in�drinkingͲwater�above�0.1�mg/l,�as�determined�in�these�studies,�are�low."3�

�4)� California�Office�of�Environmental�Health�Hazard�Assessment��(OEHHA)�

"Aluminum�exposure�via�drinking�water�has�been�associated�with�Alzheimer's�disease�(AD)�and�other�dementia,�but�no�causal�link�has�been�established�and�other�factors�are�likely�to�be�the�major�causes�of�AD…Aluminum�in�potable�drinking�water�constitutes�a�small�fraction�of�total�daily�intake�(<10%)…�Results�from�[intakeͲexcretion]�balance�studies�in�humans�demonstrate�that�gastrointestinal�adsorption�of�aluminum�is�very�low�(<1%).��Aluminum�absorption�from�municipal�tap�water�was�0.22%�[oneͲquarter�of�1%]�in�human�subjects…�In�the�absence�of�a�conclusive�causal�link�between�aluminum�and�Alzheimer's�disease�some�authors�have�argued�that�the�cost�of�aluminum�reduction�[in�drinking�water]�is�low�compared�to�the�high�cost�of�the�AD�even�if�aluminum�is�only�a�minor�factor�in�the�disease�process.��However,�OEHHA�concludes�that�the�evidence�is�insufficient�to�support�this�recommendation."4�

��1�See�http://www/alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp?gclid=CNmZ45WfͲLQCFQ45nAod6EsA3g�2�See�http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99��(Sept.,�2008)�3�World�Health�Organization.��Aluminum�in�Drinking�Water.��WHO/HSE/WSH/10.01/13��(2010)�4�California�Office�of�Environmental�Health�Hazard�Assessment.��Public�Health�Goal�for�Aluminum�in�Drinking�Water.��April,�2001.�

��

��

��

�!�� " �� #� �� #��

�� $��%��&�'(�� )$�� $�� )$�� %�� %�� %�� %�*&(� �� +,(� �� !�

�'�� -��

�� ./0��1��+��1�� 2� ��3��4�� &�+��1�� /��/��/�� ,��1��*/�5��/�� 0+(�� 6�"� � �� ,(�� $��%�� %�� &�!(��,(��-�� 00�0(�� 7�� '�

�*�� -��

�� 8��%�� 9�� -�� *�

��3%��%�:��-�� ;�<��3��7�"�� =��>��$�� ? �� @��&,%�$��A��%�!&��7��*.0/�*00��3%��%�3��3��%�B��"�� >��: �7��4�� "��<�� 3��B�� 4��4��@��*%�$��A��%�!&�!7��!!!+/!,'��!�"��>��C��?��%�8�"��9��%�"��8� � �%�2� ��9 �� -�� >��!,%�!&�!��D11�� 1�� 1�5,'�,/�� '�E��<�� 3��!%�!&&.��D11��/��1�/��1��1��/��1�� 1 ��/��*�$� ��E��<�� 3��!%�!&&.��

March�12,�2013�

DRAFT�


��Figure�1:�

�

�Figure�2:�

�

�

�March�12,�2013�

DRAFT�


��

�Figure�3:�

�

�Figure�4:�

�

30

11

31

12

32

13

33

14

5. Communication Support -‐ LESJWA Video Edits DeGrave Communications has worked with Production Video to make necessary updates to the founding LESJWA video. Edits included: title changes, added logos and flyover video changes.

6. LESJWA Infographic The draft of the LESJWA infographic is being revised, per the recommendation of the Education and Outreach Committee. DeGrave Communications has drafted text and is working with Creation Graphic Design to make edits to the new infographic.

DRAFT

34

15

7. LESJWA Summit Planning In preparation for the spring LESJWA Summit, DeGrave Communications has begun to qualify the existing invite list. Currently, there are 244 contacts on the list. It is being qualified for accuracy. The list includes electeds that were affected by the November election. A “save the date” email is expected to me sent out in December. 8. Media Monitoring The following are articles related to the August fish kills at Lake Elsinore. These articles were not secured by DeGrave Communications, but are being included because they are relevant to LESJWA and coordinated outreach efforts. These articles resulted from media outreach relating to the Lake Watch 2015 campaign.

35

16

36

17

37

18

38

20

40

21

41

22

42

23

The following are articles related to the September alum community workshop and treatment at Canyon Lake. These articles have resulted from media outreach relating to the fifth alum treatment and workshop.

43

24

44

25

45

26

46

27

47

28

The following article is related to the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake watershed. This was not secured by DeGrave Communications, is included for informational purposes.

48

LESJWA BOARD MEMORANDUM NO. 779 DATE: December 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Report on Audit for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015 TO: LESJWA Board of Directors FROM: Karen Williams, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors receive and file the FY 2014-15 Report on Audit prepared by White Nelson Diehl Evans, LLP, and direct staff to file the Report on Audit with respective government agencies as required by law. DISCUSSION Attached for your review, receipt, and filing is LESJWA’s FY 2014-15 Report on Audit (Financial Statements) prepared by White Nelson Diehl Evans, LLP. All government agencies and/or special districts must contract for an independent financial audit as required by California Government Code. In addition, because LESJWA has received State (SWRCB) grant funding, the independent audit must include additional work and reporting by the auditors testing LESJWA’s internal control procedures for receipt of grant funding, to ensure compliance with respective State and Federal laws and regulations. Staff is pleased to report that the financial statements presented herein contain no qualifications or reportable conditions. This indicates that LESJWA’s financial reporting meets generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), is compliant with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, and its internal controls are sufficient to safeguard against material errors or fraud. The Audit report was sent to each of the member agency’s financial staffs for review. After a review of the Audit Report, the financial staff did not feel it was necessary to meet and did not wish to make changes to the report. Karen Williams will present the audit, and respond to questions the Board may have regarding LESJWA’s Report on Audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. RESOURCES IMPACT None. KW:dm Attachments: 1. LESJWA Management Report 2. LESJWA Annual Financial Report

49

2875 Michelle Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606 • Tel: 714.978.1300 • Fax: 714.978.7893

Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties

Board of DirectorsLake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds AuthorityRiverside, California

We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and major fund of the Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (the Authority) for the year ended June 30, 2015. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter on planning matters dated June 24, 2015. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Findings

Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices

Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the Authority are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year. We noted no transactions entered into by the Authority during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected.

The most sensitive estimate affecting the Authority’s financial statements is management’s estimate of the fair market value of investments is based on market values provided by outside sources. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop this estimate in determining that it was reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosure affecting the financial statements was reported in Note 4 regarding the Authority’s related party transactions with Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

50

Significant Audit Findings (Continued)

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.

Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements

Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. No misstatements were detected as a result of our audit procedures.

Disagreements with Management

For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations

We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated October 23, 2015.

Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants

In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the Authority’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Other Audit Findings or Issues

We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the Authority’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

51

Other Matters

We applied certain limited procedures to the management’s discussion and analysis and budgetary comparison schedule, which is required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI..

We were not engaged to report on the organization information, which accompany the financial statements but is not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.

Restriction on Use

This information is intended solely for the use of the Board of Directors and management of the Authority and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Irvine, CaliforniaOctober 23, 2015

52

tiffanyf

Text Box

LAKEELSINORE&SANJACINTOWATERSHEDSAUTHORITY

ANNUALFINANCIALREPORT

WITHREPORTONAUDITBYINDEPENDENT

CERTIFIEDPUBLICACCOUNTANTS

FORTHEFISCALYEARENDEDJUNE30,2015

53

LakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthority

BoardofDirectorsasofJune30,2015

Representing Name Title Appointment

CityofLakeElsinore RobertE.Magee Chair April2010

SantaAnaWatershedProjectAuthority BrendaDennstedt ViceChair June2015

ElsinoreValleyMunicipalWaterDistrict PhilWilliams Treasurer February2001

CityofCanyonLake VickiWarren Director February2015

CountyofRiverside KevinJeffries Director February2013

LakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthorityMarkNorton,AuthorityAdministrator

11615SterlingAvenueRiverside,CA92503•(951)354‐4220

www.mywatersheds.com

54

i


TABLEOFCONTENTS

ForthefiscalyearendedJune30,2015

PageNumber

TableofContents i

FinancialSection:

IndependentAuditors’Report 1‐3

Management’sDiscussionandAnalysis(RequiredSupplementaryInformation) 4‐11

BasicFinancialStatements:Government‐WideFinancialStatements:

StatementofNetPosition 12 StatementofActivities 13

FundFinancialStatements: BalanceSheet‐GovernmentalFund 14 StatementofRevenues,Expendituresand ChangeinFundBalance‐GovernmentalFund 15

NotestotheBasicFinancialStatements 16‐26

RequiredSupplementaryInformation:

BudgetaryComparisonSchedule‐GeneralFund 27NotetoRequiredSupplementaryInformation 28

OtherInformation:

OrganizationInformation 29

ReportonInternalControlandCompliance:

IndependentAuditors’ReportonInternalControlOverFinancialReportingandonComplianceandOtherMattersBasedonanAuditofFinancialStatementsPerformedinAccordancewithGovernmentAuditingStandards 30‐31

55



INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’REPORT

BoardofDirectorsLakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthorityRiverside,California

ReportontheFinancialStatements

Wehaveauditedtheaccompanyingfinancialstatementsofthegovernmentalactivitiesandmajorfundof theLakeElsinore&San JacintoWatershedsAuthority (theAuthority)asof and for theyear ended June30,2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectivelycomprisetheAuthority’sbasicfinancialstatementsaslistedinthetableofcontents.

Management’sResponsibilityfortheFinancialStatements

ManagementisresponsibleforthepreparationandfairpresentationofthesefinancialstatementsinaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica;thisincludes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to thepreparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from materialmisstatement,whetherduetofraudorerror.

Auditors’Responsibility

Ourresponsibility is toexpressopinionson these financial statementsbasedonouraudit.Weconducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the UnitedStatesofAmerica,thestandardsapplicabletofinancialauditscontainedinGovernmentAuditingStandards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the State Controller’sMinimumAuditRequirements forCaliforniaSpecialDistricts.Thosestandardsrequire thatweplan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts anddisclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors’judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financialstatements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditorsconsider internal control relevant to the Authority’s preparation and fair presentation of thefinancial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in thecircumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of theAuthority’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includesevaluatingtheappropriatenessofaccountingpoliciesusedandthereasonablenessofsignificantaccountingestimatesmadebymanagement,aswellasevaluatingtheoverallpresentationofthefinancialstatements.

Webelieve that theaudit evidencewehaveobtained is sufficient and appropriate toprovideabasisforourauditopinions.

56

Opinions

Inouropinion,thefinancialstatementsreferredtoabovepresentfairly, inallmaterialrespects,the financial position of the governmental activities and major fund of the Authority as ofJune30,2015 and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended inaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,aswellas the accounting systems prescribed by the State Controller’s Office and State regulationsgoverningSpecialDistricts.

OTHERMATTERS:

PartialSummarizedComparativeInformation

Thefinancialstatementsincludepartialyearcomparativeinformation.Suchinformationdoesnotincludealloftheinformationrequiredtoconstituteapresentationinaccordancewithaccountingprinciples generally accepted in the United States of America. Accordingly, such informationshould be read in conjunction with the Authority’s financial statements for the year endedJune30,2014fromwhichsuchpartialinformationwasderived.

RequiredSupplementaryInformation

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that themanagement’s discussion and analysis and the budgetary comparison schedule, identified asRequiredSupplementaryInformation(RSI)intheaccompanyingtableofcontents,bepresentedto supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of thefinancial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, whoconsiders it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financialstatements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have appliedcertainlimitedprocedurestotheRSIinaccordancewithauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichconsistedofinquiriesofmanagementaboutthemethodsofpreparingtheinformationandcomparingtheinformationforconsistencywithmanagement’sresponses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtainedduringtheauditofthebasicfinancialstatements.WedonotexpressanopinionorprovideanyassuranceontheRSIbecausethelimitedproceduresdonotprovideuswithsufficientevidencetoexpressanopinionorprovideanyassurance.

OtherInformation

Ourauditwas conducted for thepurposeof formingopinionson the financial statements thatcollectivelycomprisetheAuthority’sbasicfinancialstatements.Theorganizationinformationispresented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financialstatements.

Theorganizationinformationhasnotbeensubjectedtotheauditingproceduresapplied intheauditofthebasicfinancialstatementsand,accordingly,wedonotexpressanopinionorprovideanyassuranceonit.

57

OtherReportingRequiredbyGovernmentAuditingStandards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report datedOctober 23, 2015, on our consideration of the Authority’s internal control over financialreporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,contracts,andgrantagreementsandothermatters.Thepurposeofthatreportistodescribethescopeofourtestingofinternalcontroloverfinancialreportingandcomplianceandtheresultsofthat testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or oncompliance.ThatreportisanintegralpartofanauditperformedinaccordancewithGovernmentAuditingStandards in considering theAuthority’s internal control over financial reportingandcompliance.

Irvine,CaliforniaOctober23,2015

58

Management’sDiscussionandAnalysis

TheAuthority

TheLakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthority (theAuthorityorLESJWA) was formedin2000pursuanttotheprovisionsofArticle1,Chapter5,Division7,Title1oftheGovernmentCodeoftheStateofCaliforniarelatingtothe joint exerciseofpowerscommontopublicagencies. TheAuthority was formed for the purpose of implementing projects and programs to improve thewater quality and habitat of Lake Elsinore and its back basin consistentwith the Lake ElsinoreManagementPlan,andtorehabilitateandimprovetheSanJacintoandLakeElsinoreWatershedsand the water quality of Lake Elsinore in order to preserve agricultural land, protect wildlifehabitat,andprotectandenhancerecreationalresources,allforthebenefitofthegeneralpublic.InApril 2010, the LESJWA Board revised its organizational mission to set an equal emphasis onimprovingCanyonLakewaterqualityaswithLakeElsinoreandthewatersheds.

TheAuthority’sfivememberagenciesaretheCityofLakeElsinore,CityofCanyonLake,CountyofRiverside, Elsinore ValleyMunicipalWater District (EVMWD), and Santa AnaWatershed ProjectAuthority(SAWPA).

OverviewoftheFinancialStatements

TheAuthority isaspecialpurposegovernment (specialdistrict). Accordingly, theaccompanyingfinancial statements are presented in the format prescribed for governmental funds by theGovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard.

TheAuthority hasonegovernmentalfund, thegeneralfund.

Thesefinancialstatementsconsistof four interrelatedstatementsdesignedtoprovidethereaderwithrelevant,understandabledataabouttheAuthority’sfinancialconditionandoperatingresults.The Authority’ basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-widefinancial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and3)notes to the financial statements. Thisreportalsocontainsothersupplementaryinformationinadditiontothebasicfinancialstatementsthemselves.

Government-wide financial statements.Thestatementofnetposition presents informationonall the Authority’s assets and liabilities, with the differences between the two reported as netposition. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator ofwhetherthefinancialpositionoftheAuthorityisimprovingordeteriorating.

Thestatementofactivitiespresents informationshowinghowtheAuthority’snetposition changedduring the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as theunderlying event giving rise to thechangeoccurs, regardlessof timingof the related cash flows.Thus,revenuesandexpensesarereportedinthisstatementforsomeitemsthatwillonlyresultincashflowinfuturefiscalperiods.

Thegovernment-widefinancialstatements canbefoundonpages12 and13 ofthisreport.

Fund financial statements. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the samefunctions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements.However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financialstatementsfocusonnear-terminflowsandoutflowsofspendableresources,aswellasonbalancesofspendableresourcesavailableattheendofthefiscalyear.

59


The governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues,expendituresandchangesinfundbalance eachprovideareconciliationtofacilitateacomparisonbetweengovernmentalfundsandgovernmentalactivities.

Thegovernmentalfundfinancialstatementscanbefoundonpage14 -15 ofthisreport.

Notestothefinancialstatements.Thenotesprovideadditionalinformationthatisessentialtoafullunderstandingofthedataprovidedinthegovernment-wideandfundfinancialstatements.Thenotestothefinancialstatementscanbefoundonpages16 - 26 ofthisreport.

Government-wideFinancialAnalysis

Asnotedearlier,netposition mayserveovertimeasausefulindicatorofagovernment’sfinancialposition.InthecaseoftheAuthority,assetsexceededliabilitiesby$738,871 atJune30,2015.

NetPosition

2015 2014 2013

Assets

CurrentAssets $840,261 $490,644 $419,006

TotalAssets 840,261 490,644 419,006

Liabilities

CurrentLiabilities 101,390 36,643 26,605

TotalLiabilities 101,390 36,643 26,605

NetPosition

Unrestricted 738,871 454,001 392,401

TotalNetPosition $738,871 $454,001 $392,401

The followingdenotesexplanationsonsomeof thechangesbetweenfiscalyears,ascomparedinthetableabove.

The $349,617 increase in current assets is due to an increase in cash andinvestments.CashincreasedbecausebothmemberagencyandTMDLcontributionswereincreasedfromtheprioryear.ManyoftheTMDLprojectsweredelayedsothecashwasstillavailableattheendoftheyear.

The $64,747 increase in liabilities is due to an increase in accounts payable andrelatedpartypayables. ManyoftheTMDLprojectsweredelayeduntilearlyspring.Many of the invoices for that work were received at the end of June increasingaccountspayableattheendoftheyear.

60


CategoriesofNetPosition

TheAuthorityisrequiredtopresentitsnetposition inthreecategories:NetInvestment inCapitalAssets;Restricted;andUnrestricted.

InvestedinCapitalAssets

AtJune30,2015,theAuthoritydidnothaveanynetinvestment incapitalassets.

Restricted

AtJune30,2015,theAuthoritydidnothaveanyrestrictednetposition.

Unrestricted

AtJune30,2015,theAuthorityhadunrestrictednetposition of$738,871.

ChangeinNetPosition

Overall,thefiscalyearended June30,2015,resultedinan increase innetposition of$284,870,a$223,270 increase from thepreviousyear. Thebudget included theuseof reserves to fund JPAoperations.

ChangesinNetPosition

2015 2014 2013

ItemCategoryAmount Amount Amount

ProgramRevenues $760,325 $519,698 $259,743

GeneralRevenues 101,415 51,069 51,871

TotalRevenues 861,740 570,767 311,614

TotalExpenses 576,870 509,167 606,954

ChangeinNetPosition 284,870 61,600 (295,340)

BeginningNetPosition 454,001 392,401 687,741

EndingNetPosition $738,871 $454,001 $392,401

61


DecreaseinNetPosition(Inthousands)

-$500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2015 2014 2013

Revenue

Expenditures/Expenses

Decrease in NetPosition

Revenues

Combinedrevenuesforthefiscalyeartotaled$861,740 an increase of$290,973,or51%,more thantheprior fiscal year. The following tablepresents a comparisonof revenuesby category for thefiscalyears2015, 2014,and2013.

Revenues– GovernmentWide

2015 2014 2013

RevenueCategory %of %of %of

Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total

CapitalandOperatingGrants $760,325 88.24% $519,698 91.05% $259,743 83.35%

MemberContributions 100,000 11.60% 50,000 8.76% 50,000 16.05%

InterestEarnings 1,415 0.16% 1,069 0.19% 1,871 0.60%

TotalRevenues $861,740 100.00% $570,767 100.00% $311,614 100.00%


The$240,627 increaseincapitalandoperating grantsisduetoanincreaseinTMDLTask Force contributions from the fiscal year ended 2014 and receipt of aProposition84grant.

The $50,000 increase in member contributions is due to EVMWD, City of LakeElsinore,andtheCountyofRiversideagreeingtocontributeanadditional$10,000in contributions each. Riverside County Flood Control also agreed to contribute$20,000tohelpcoveradministrativecosts.

62


Expenses

Combinedexpenditures forthefiscalyeartotaled$576,870,an increaseof$67,703,or13.3%,morethanthepriorfiscalyear.Thefollowingtablepresentsacomparisonofexpenditures bycategoryforthefiscalyears 2015, 2014,and2013.

Expenses – GovernmentWide

2015 2014 2013

ExpenseCategory %of %of %of

Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total

Administrative $207,099 35.90% $164,902 32.39% $179,262 29.53%

ContractLabor 1,313 0.23% 1,225 0.24% 1,700 0.28%

Consulting 368,405 63.86% 342,994 67.36% 247,266 40.74%

TaskForceCredit - 0.00% - 0.00% 178,671 29.44%

InterestExpense 53 0.01% 46 0.01% 55 0.01%

TotalExpenses $576,870 100.00% $509,167 100.00% $606,954 100.00%


The $42,197 increase in administrative costs is due to the TMDL Task Forceincreasingtheirbudgetandaddingadditionalactivities.

The$25,411 increasein consultingcostsisduetoanincreasedeffortintheTMDLTask Force from the fiscal year ended 2014. The Task Force increased plannedactivitiesoverwhatwasoriginallybudgeted.

FinancialAnalysisoftheAuthority’s Funds

Asnotedearlier, theAuthorityusesfundaccounting toensureanddemonstratecompliancewithfinance-relatedlegalrequirements.

GovernmentalFunds

The focusof theAuthority’s governmental funds is toprovide informationonnear-term inflows,outflows,andbalancesofresourcesthatareavailable forspending. Suchinformationisuseful inassessingtheAuthority’sfinancingrequirements.Inparticular,unreservedfundbalancemayserveasausefulmeasureofagovernment’snetresourcesavailableforspendingattheendofthefiscalyear.ThegovernmentalfundreportedbytheAuthorityistheAuthority’sgeneralfund.

AsoftheendofthefiscalyearendedJune30,2015,theAuthority’sgeneral fund reportedanendingfundbalanceof$738,871,an increaseof$284,870 or62.7%ascomparedtotheprioryear.Allofthe fund balance constitutes unreserved fund balance, which is available for spending at theAuthority’sdiscretion.

63


ThegeneralfundisthechiefoperatingfundoftheAuthority.Attheendofthecurrentfiscalyear,thetotal fundbalanceofthegeneralfundwas$738,871,whichwasalsothetotalfundbalance.Asameasureofthegeneralfund’sliquidity,itmaybeusefultocomparebothunreservedfundbalancesandtotalfundbalancetototalfundexpenditures.

Unreservedfundbalancerepresents128.1%oftotalgeneral fundexpendituresof$576,870. Theprioryearcomparisonforunreservedfundbalancetototalgeneralfundexpendituresis89.2%.

ThefundbalanceintheAuthority’sgeneralfundincreasedby$284,870 duringthefiscalyearduetoseveralfactors:

Additionalmembercontributionswerereceivedfromthememberagenciestocovercostsinsteadofusingreservestofundoperations.

Increased contributions for funding the TMDL Task Force because of addedactivities.

ReceiptofProposition84grantfundstocoversomeofthecostsnormallycoveredbytheTMDLTaskForcecontributions.

Overall, thegeneral fund’sperformanceresultedinrevenues exceedingexpenditures in thefiscalyear ended June 30, 2015, by $284,870. In the prior year, general fund expenditures exceededrevenues by$61,600.

64


GeneralFundBudgetaryVariances

The Authority’s final budget of the general fund did not change from the original budget. Thefollowing table presents a comparison of original budgeted amounts versus the actual amountsincurredbycategoryforthefiscalyear ended June30,2015.

Budgetversus Actual- GeneralFundFortheYearEndedJune30,2015

Budgeted Actual Variancewith

Amounts Amounts Budget

Originaland Budgetaryand Positive

Final GAAPBasis (Negative)

Revenues

CapitalandOperatingGrants $654,892 $760,325 $105,433

MemberContributions 70,000 100,000 30,000

InterestEarnings 800 1,415 615

TotalRevenues 725,692 861,740 136,048

Expenses

Administrative 177,140 207,099 (29,959)

ContractLabor - 1,313 (1,313)

Consulting 569,634 368,405 201,229

InterestExpense 50 53 (3)

TotalExpenses 746,824 576,870 169,954

Excess(Deficiency)ofRevenuesOver(Under)Expenditures

$(21,132) $284,870 $306,002

FundBalances- BeginningofYear 454,001

FundBalances- EndofYear $738,871

Thefollowingdenotesexplanationson someofthesignificantbudgetvariances,ascomparedinthetableabove.

65


The$105,433 positive varianceforcapitalandoperatinggrantsisduetotheTMDLtaskforceincreasingthebudgetforthefiscalyearended 2015,thereforeincreasingtheneededcontributions.

The$30,000positivevarianceformembercontributionsisduetoEVMWD,CityofLake Elsinore, and the County of Riverside agreeing to increase their memberagencycontributionsby$10,000each.

The$201,229 positive variance for consulting is due to expenses on a number ofTMDLTaskForceprojects thatwerepostponeduntil late springat the requestoftheTMDLTaskForceandthosethatwerestartedhad farlowercoststhan originallyprojectedduetoreceivingcompetitivebids.

The $29,959 negative variance for general and administrative costs is due to theTMDLTaskForceincreasingtheplannedactivitiesandbudget.Bothconsultingandlaborcostswereincreasedtotakeontheadditionalactivities.

ExistingCapitalAssets

TheAuthoritydidnothaveanycapitalassetsasofJune30,2015.

FutureCapitalImprovements

TheAuthoritydoesnothaveanyplansforfuturecapitalimprovements.

Long-TermDebt

TheAuthoritydidnothaveanylong-termdebtasofJune30,2015.

66

BASICFINANCIALSTATEMENTS

67

2015 2014

ASSETS:

Cashandcashequivalents(Note2) 759,875$ 488,286$

Accruedinterestreceivable 395 290

Accountsreceivable 77,829 -

Prepaidinsurance 2,162 2,068

TOTALASSETS 840,261 490,644

LIABILITIES:

Accountspayableandaccruedexpenses 47,778 22,592

Relatedpartypayable(Note4) 24,772 14,051

Unearnedrevenue 28,840 -

TOTALLIABILITIES 101,390 36,643

NETPOSITION:

Unrestricted 738,871 454,001

TOTALNETPOSITION 738,871$ 454,001$

Seeaccompanyingnotestothebasicfinancialstatements.


STATEMENTOFNETPOSITION

(WithcomparativetotalsforJune30,2014)

June30,2015

GovernmentalActivities

68

2015 2014

EXPENSES:

Administrative 207,099$ 164,902$

Contractlabor 1,313 1,225

Consulting 368,405 342,994

Interestexpense 53 46

TOTALEXPENSES 576,870 509,167

PROGRAMREVENUES:

Capitalandoperatinggrants 760,325 519,698

TOTALPROGRAMREVENUES 760,325 519,698

NETPROGRAMREVENUES 183,455 10,531

GENERALREVENUES:

Membercontributions 100,000 50,000

Interestearnings 1,415 1,069

TOTALGENERALREVENUES 101,415 51,069

CHANGEINNETPOSITION 284,870 61,600

NETPOSITION-BEGINNINGOFYEAR 454,001 392,401

NETPOSITION-ENDOFYEAR 738,871$ 454,001$



STATEMENTOFACTIVITIES

(WithcomparativetotalsforthefiscalyearendedJune30,2014)


GovernmentalActivities

69

General

Fund

ASSETS:

Cashandcashequivalents 759,875$

Accruedinterestreceivable 395

Accountsreceivable 77,829

Prepaidinsurance 2,162

TOTALASSETS 840,261$

LIABILITIES:

Accountspayableandaccruedexpenses 47,778$

Relatedpartypayable 24,772

Unearnedrevenue 28,840

TOTALLIABILITIES 101,390

FUNDBALANCE(NOTE3):

Nonspendable 2,162

Unassigned 736,709

TOTALFUNDBALANCE 738,871

TOTALLIABILITIESANDFUNDBALANCE 840,261$



GOVERNMENTALFUND

June30,2015

BALANCESHEET

70

General

Fund

REVENUES:

Capitalandoperatinggrants 760,325$

Membercontributions 100,000

Interestearnings 1,415

TOTALREVENUES 861,740

EXPENDITURES:

Administrative 207,099

Contractlabor 1,313

Consulting 368,405

Interestexpense 53

TOTALEXPENDITURES 576,870

EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OFREVENUES

OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES 284,870

FUNDBALANCE-BEGINNINGOFYEAR 454,001

FUNDBALANCE-ENDOFYEAR 738,871$



STATEMENTOFREVENUES,EXPENDITURESAND


CHANGESINFUNDBALANCE-GOVERNMENTALFUND

71


NOTESTOTHEBASICFINANCIALSTATEMENTS


1. SUMMARYOFSIGNIFICANTACCOUNTINGPOLICIES:

a. OrganizationandPurpose:

The Lake Elsinore & San JacintoWatersheds Authority (the Authority) was formed onApril5,2000pursuanttotheprovisionsofSection6500ofArticle1,Chapter5,Division7,Title1of theGovernmentCodeoftheStateofCaliforniarelatingtothe jointexerciseofpowers common to public agencies. The purpose of the Authority is to implementprojectsandprogramstoimprovethewaterqualityandhabitatofLakeElsinoreanditsbackbasin consistentwith theLakeElsinoreManagementPlan, and to rehabilitate andimprove the San Jacinto and Lake ElsinoreWatersheds and the water quality of LakeElsinore inorder topreserveagricultural land,protectwildlifehabitat, andprotectandenhancerecreationalresources,all for thebenefitof thegeneralpublic. Administrativecosts are funded through equal contributions from each member agency. The fivememberagenciesaretheCityofLakeElsinore,CityofCanyonLake,CountyofRiverside,Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.TheAuthorityisgovernedbyafive‐memberBoardofDirectors.

b. BasisofAccountingandMeasurementFocus:

ThebasicfinancialstatementsoftheAuthorityarecomprisedofthefollowing:

Government‐widefinancialstatements Fundfinancialstatements Notestothebasicfinancialstatements

Government‐wideFinancialStatements:

These statements are presented on an economic resourcesmeasurement focus and theaccrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the Authority’s assets and liabilities,includingcapitalassets,areincludedintheaccompanyingStatementofNetPosition.TheStatement of Activities presents changes in net position. Under the accrual basis ofaccounting,revenuesarerecognized intheperiod inwhichthe liability is incurred.TheStatementofActivitiesdemonstratesthedegreetowhichthedirectexpensesofagivenfunction are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearlyidentifiable with a specific function. The types of transactions reported as programrevenuesfortheAuthorityaretobereportedinthreecategories,ifapplicable:1)chargesfor services, 2)operating grants and contributions, and, 3)capital grants andcontributions.Charges for services include revenues fromcustomersor applicantswhopurchase,use,ordirectlybenefitfromgoods,services,orprivilegesprovidedbyagivenfunction.Grantandcontributionsincluderevenuesrestrictedtomeetingtheoperationalor capital requirements of a particular function. Taxes and other items not properlyincludedamongprogramrevenuesarereportedinsteadasgeneralrevenues.

72


NOTESTOTHEBASICFINANCIALSTATEMENTS(CONTINUED)


1. SUMMARYOFSIGNIFICANTACCOUNTINGPOLICIES(CONTINUED):

b. BasisofAccountingandMeasurementFocus(Continued):

GovernmentalFundFinancialStatements:

ThesestatementsincludeaBalanceSheetandaStatementofRevenues,ExpendituresandChangesinFundBalancesforallmajorgovernmentalfunds.TheAuthorityhaspresenteditsGeneralFund,as itsmajor fund, in thisstatement tomeet thequalificationsofGASBStatementNo.34.

Governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or current financial resourcesmeasurement focus and themodified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, currentassets and liabilities are included on the Balance Sheet. The Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance presents increases (revenues and otherfinancingsources)anddecreases(expendituresandotherfinancinguses)infundbalance.Undermodified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accountingperiod inwhich they becomemeasurable and available to finance expenditures of thecurrent period. Accordingly, revenues are recordedwhen received in cash, except thatrevenuessubjecttoaccrual(generally60‐daysafteryear‐end)arerecognizedwhendue.The primary sources susceptible to accrual for the Authority are interest earnings,investmentrevenueandoperatingandcapitalgrantrevenues.Expendituresaregenerallyrecognizedunderthemodifiedaccrualbasisofaccountingwhentherelatedfundliabilityisincurred.However,exceptionstothisruleincludeprincipalandinterestondebt,whicharerecognizedwhendue.

TheAuthorityreportsthefollowingmajorgovernmentalfund:

GeneralFund‐isagovernment’sprimaryoperatingfund.ItaccountsforallfinancialresourcesoftheAuthority,exceptthoserequiredtobeaccountedforinanotherfundwhennecessary.

c. ReconciliationofFundFinancialStatementstoGovernment‐wideFinancialStatements:

In order to adjust the fundbalanceon the governmental (general) fundbalance sheet toarriveatnetpositiononthestatementofnetposition,certainadjustmentsarerequiredasaresult of the differences in accounting basis and measurement focus between thegovernment‐wide and fund financial statements. For the year ended June 30, 2015, theAuthoritydidnothaveanyadjustmentstomake.

73





d. NewAccountingPronouncements:

CurrentYearStandards:

GASB 68 ‐ “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, an amendment of GASBStatementNo. 27”, was required to be implemented in the current fiscal year did notimpacttheAuthority.

GASB 69 ‐ “Government Combinations and Disposals of Government Operations”, wasrequiredtobeimplementedinthecurrentfiscalyeardidnotimpacttheAuthority.

GASB 71 ‐ “Pension Transition for ContributionsMade Subsequent to theMeasurementDate,anAmendmentofGASBStatementNo.68”,wasrequired tobe implemented in thecurrentfiscalyeardidnotimpacttheAuthority.

PendingAccountingStandards:

GASB has issued the following statements which may impact the Authority’s financialreportingrequirementsinthefuture:

GASB 72 - “Fair Value Measurement and Application”, effective for periods beginningafter June 15, 2015.

GASB 73 - “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That AreNot within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions ofGASB Statements 67 and 68”, effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2015 - exceptfor those provisions that address employers and governmental nonemployer contributingentities for pensions that are not within the scope of Statement 68, which are effective forperiods beginning after June 15, 2016.

GASB 74 - “Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than PensionPlans”, effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2016.

GASB 75 - “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other ThanPensions”, effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2017.

GASB 76 - “The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State andLocal Governments”, effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2015.

74





e. DeferredOutflows/InflowsofResources:

Inadditiontoassets,thestatementofnetpositionwillsometimesreportaseparatesectionfor deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferredoutflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to futureperiodsandsowillnotbe recognizedasanoutflowof resources (expense/expenditure)untilthattime.TheAuthoritydoesnothaveanyapplicabledeferredoutflowsofresources.

In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report aseparate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statementelement,deferredinflowsofresources,representsanacquisitionofnetpositionthatappliestofutureperiodsandwillnotberecognizedasaninflowofresources(revenue)untilthattime.TheAuthoritydoesnothaveanyapplicabledeferredinflowsofresources.

f. NetPositionFlowAssumption:

Sometimes theAuthoritywill fundoutlays for aparticularpurpose fromboth restricted(e.g.,restricted grant proceeds) and unrestricted resources. In order to calculate theamounts to report as restricted ‐ net position and unrestricted ‐ net position, a flowassumptionmustbemade about theorder inwhich the resources are considered tobeapplied.

ItistheAuthority’spolicytoconsiderrestricted‐netpositiontohavebeendepletedbeforeunrestricted‐netpositionisapplied.

g. CashandCashEquivalents:

Substantially all of Authority’s cash is invested in interest bearing cash accounts. TheAuthorityconsidersallhighly liquid investmentswith initialmaturitiesof threemonthsorlesstobecashequivalents.

h. InvestmentsandInvestmentPolicy:

The Authority has adopted an investment policy directing the Authority Manager todepositfundsinfinancialinstitutions.Investmentsaretobemadeinthefollowingarea:

LocalAgencyInvestmentFund(LAIF)

75





h. InvestmentsandInvestmentPolicy(Continued):

Changesinfairvaluethatoccurduringafiscalyeararerecognizedasunrealizedgainsorlossesandreported for that fiscalyear. Investment incomecomprises interestearnings,changes in fair value, and any gains or losses realized upon the liquidation or sale ofinvestments.

i. AccountsReceivableandAllowanceforBadDebt:

The Authority considers accounts receivable to be fully collectible. Accordingly, anallowancefordoubtfulaccountsisnotrequired.

j. UnearnedRevenue:

Unearned revenuerepresents task force contributionsbudgeted for thenext fiscal yearreceivedinthecurrentfiscalyear.

k. BudgetaryPolicies:

Priorto June30theach fiscalyear, theAuthorityadoptsanannualappropriatedbudgetforplanning, control, andevaluationpurposes.Thebudget includesproposed expensesand the means of financing them. Budgetary control and evaluation are affected bycomparisons of actual revenues and expenseswith planned revenues and expenses fortheperiod.TheBoardapproves totalbudgetedappropriations andanyamendments tothe appropriations throughout the year. Actual expenses may not exceed budgetedappropriations, except by 2/3 vote of the Board. Formal budgetary integration isemployedasamanagement controldeviceduring theyear.Encumbranceaccounting isnotusedtoaccountforcommitmentsrelatedtounperformedcontractsforconstructionandservices.

l. NetPosition:

Thefinancialstatementsutilizeanetpositionpresentation.Netpositioniscategorizedasfollows:

Net Investment inCapitalAssets ‐ This component of net position consists ofcapital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by any outstandingdebt outstanding against the acquisition, construction or improvement of thoseassets.TheAuthorityhasnonetinvestmentincapitalassets.

76





l. NetPosition(Continued):

RestrictedNetPosition ‐Thiscomponentofnetpositionconsistsofconstraintsplaced on net position use through external constraints imposed by creditors,grantors,contributors,orlawsorregulationsofothergovernmentsorconstraintsimposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. TheAuthorityhasnorestrictednetposition.

Unrestricted Net Position ‐ This component of net position consists of netposition that does not meet the definition of net investment in capital assets orrestricted.

m. FundBalance:

The financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance as non‐spendable,restricted,committed,assignedorunassignedbasedprimarilyontheextenttowhichtheAuthorityisboundtohonorconstraintsonhowspecificamountscanbespent.

Non‐spendable fundbalance ‐amounts that cannot be spent because they areeither (a)not spendable in form or (b)legally or contractually required to bemaintainedintact.

Restrictedfundbalance‐amountswithconstraintsplacedontheirusethatareeither (a)externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws orregulations of other governments; or (b)imposed by law through constitutionalprovisionsenablinglegislation.

Committed fundbalance ‐ amounts that canonlybeused for specificpurposesdetermined by formal action of the Authority’s highest level of decision‐makingauthority(theBoardofDirectors)andthatremainbindingunlessremovedinthesamemanner.Theunderlyingactionthatimposedthelimitationneedstooccurnolaterthanthecloseofthereportingperiod.

Assignedfundbalance‐amountsthatareconstrainedbytheAuthority’sintenttobeused forspecificpurposes.The intentcanbeestablishedateither thehighestlevelofdecision‐making,orbyabodyoranofficialdesignatedforthatpurpose.

Unassignedfundbalance ‐theresidualclassificationfortheAuthority’sgeneralfund that includes amounts not contained in the other classifications. In otherfunds, the unassigned classification is used only if expenditures incurred forspecificpurposesexceedtheamountsrestricted,committed,orassignedtothosepurposes.

77





m. FundBalance(Continued):

TheBoardofDirectorsestablished,modifiesorrescindsfundbalancecommitmentsandassignmentsbypassageofanordinanceorresolution.This isdonethroughadoptionofthebudgetandsubsequentbudgetamendmentsthatoccurthroughouttheyear.

Whenbothrestrictedandunrestrictedresourcesareavailableforuse,itistheAuthority’spolicytouserestrictedresourcesfirst, followedbycommitted,assignedandunassignedresourcesastheyareneeded.

FundBalancePolicy:

TheAuthoritybelievesthatsoundfinancialmanagementprinciplesrequirethatsufficientfundsberetainedbytheAuthoritytoprovideastablefinancialbaseatalltimes.Toretainthisstablefinancialbase,theAuthorityneedstomaintainanunrestrictedfundbalanceinits fundssufficient to fundcash flowsof theAuthorityandtoprovide financialreservesfor unanticipated expenditures and/or revenue shortfalls of an emergency nature.Committed,assignedandunassignedfundbalancesareconsideredunrestricted.

The purpose of the Authority’s fund balance policy is to maintain a prudent level offinancial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and feesbecauseoftemporaryrevenueshortfallsorunpredictedone‐timeexpenditures.

n. UseofEstimates:

Thepreparationoffinancialstatementsinaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyaccepted in the United States of America requires management tomake estimates andassumptions that effect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actualresultscoulddifferfromtheestimates.

o. PriorYearData:

Selected information regarding the prior year has been included in the accompanyingfinancial statements.This informationhasbeen included for comparisonpurposesonlyanddoesnot represent a complete presentation in accordancewith generally acceptedaccountingprinciples.Accordingly,suchinformationshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththe Authority’s prior year financial statements, fromwhich this selected financial datawasderived.

78




2. CASHANDINVESTMENTS:

CashandInvestments:

Cash and investments as of June30, 2015are classified in the Statement ofNet Position asfollows:

Cashandcashequivalents $ 759,875

CashandinvestmentsasofJune30,2015consistofthefollowing:

Depositswithfinancialinstitution $ 200,662LocalAgencyInvestmentFund(LAIF) 559,213

Totalcashandinvestments $ 759,875

AuthorizedDepositsandInvestments:

UnderprovisionsoftheAuthority’sinvestmentpolicy,andinaccordancewithSection53601oftheCaliforniaGovernmentCode,theAuthoritymayinvestincertaintypesofinvestmentsaslistedinNote1htothefinancialstatements.

CustodialCreditRisk:

Custodial credit risk fordeposits is the risk that, in the eventof the failureof adepositoryfinancialinstitution,agovernmentwillnotbeabletorecoveritsdepositsorwillnotbeabletorecovercollateralsecuritiesthatareinthepossessionofanoutsideparty.TheCaliforniaGovernment Code and the Authority’s investment policy does not contain legal or policyrequirementsthatwould limittheexposuretocustodialcredit risk fordeposits,otherthanthe following provision for deposits: The California Government Code requires that afinancial institutionsecuredepositsmadebystateor localgovernmentalunitsbypledgingsecurities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law(unlesssowaivedbythegovernmentalunit). Themarketvalueofthepledgedsecuritiesinthe collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the publicagencies. Of the Authority’s bank balance, up to $250,000 is federally insured and theremainingbalanceiscollateralizedinaccordancewiththeCode;however,thecollateralizedsecuritiesarenotheldintheAuthority’sname.

79




2. CASHANDINVESTMENTS(CONTINUED):

CustodialCreditRisk(Continued):

The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of thecounterparty(e.g.,broker‐dealer)toatransaction,agovernmentwillnotbeabletorecoverthevalueofitsinvestmentorcollateralsecuritiesthatareinthepossessionofanotherparty.TheCodeand theAuthority’s investmentpolicycontain legalandpolicy requirements thatwould limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for investments. With respect toinvestments,custodialcreditriskgenerallyappliesonlytodirectinvestmentsinmarketablesecurities.Custodialcreditriskdoesnotapplytoalocalgovernment’sindirectinvestmentinsecuritiesthroughtheuseofmutualfundsorgovernmentinvestmentpools(suchasLAIF).

InterestRateRisk:

Interestrateriskistheriskthatchangesinmarketinterestrateswilladverselyaffectthefairvalueofaninvestment.Thelongerthematurityaninvestmenthasthegreateritsfairvaluehassensitivitytochangesinmarketinterestrates.TheAuthority’sinvestmentpolicyfollowstheCodeasitrelatestolimitsoninvestmentmaturitiesasameansofmanagingexposuretofairvaluelossesarisingfromincreasinginterestrates.

InvestmentsinLAIFareconsideredhighlyliquid,asdepositscanbeconvertedtocashwithin24hourswithoutlossofinterest.AsofJune30,2015,theLAIFpoolhadaweightedaveragematurityofthefollowing:

LocalAgencyInvestmentFund(LAIF) 239days

CreditRisk:

Creditriskistheriskthatanissuerofaninvestmentwillnotfulfillitsobligationtotheholderoftheinvestment.Thisismeasuredbytheassignmentofaratingbyanationallyrecognizedstatisticalratingorganization;however,LAIFisnotrated.

ConcentrationofCreditRisk:

TheAuthority’s investmentpolicy contains various limitationson the amounts that canbeinvested in any one governmental agency or non‐governmental issuer as stipulatedby theCalifornia Government Code. The Authority’s deposit portfolio with LAIF is 74% of theAuthority’s total depository and investment portfolio as of June 30, 2015. There were noinvestments in any one non‐governmental issuer that represent 5% or more of theAuthority’stotalinvestments.

80




2. CASHANDINVESTMENTS(CONTINUED):

InvestmentinStateInvestmentPool:

TheAuthorityisavoluntaryparticipantintheLocalAgencyInvestmentFund(LAIF)thatisregulated by the California Government Code under the oversight of the Treasurer of theStateofCalifornia.ThefairvalueoftheAuthority’sinvestmentinthispoolisreportedintheaccompanyingfinancialstatementsatamountsbasedupontheAuthority’spro‐ratashareofthefairvalueprovidedbyLAIFfortheentireLAIFportfolio(inrelationtotheamortizedcostof thatportfolio).Thebalanceavailable forwithdrawal isbasedon theaccounting recordsmaintainedbyLAIF,whicharerecordedonanamortizedcostbasis.

3. FUNDBALANCE:

Fund balances are presented in the following categories: nonspendable, restricted,committed,assigned,andunassigned(seeNote1mforadescriptionof thesecategories).Adetailed schedule of fund balances and their funding composition at June 30, 2015 is asfollows:

Nonspendable: Prepaidinsurance $ 2,162Unassigned 736,709

Totalfundbalance $ 738,871

4. RELATEDPARTYTRANSACTIONS:

TheAuthoritycontractswithoneof itsmemberagencies, theSantaAnaWatershedProjectAuthority (SAWPA), to administer all of its accounting and administrative support. Totalexpenditures for administrative services provided by SAWPA for the fiscal year endedJune30,2015were$198,476. AmountspaidtoSAWPAforfiscalyear2014‐2015consistedof $65,547 for salaries, $30,086 for benefits, and $102,843 for overhead allocation. AtJune30,2015theamountduetoSAWPAwas$24,772.

5. RISKMANAGEMENT:

The Authority is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to anddestructionofassets;errorsandomissions;injuriestoemployees;andnaturaldisasters.TheAuthority has purchased various commercial insurance policies to manage the potentialliabilitiesthatmayoccurfromthepreviouslynamedsources.

81




6. OTHERREQUIREDINDIVIDUALFUNDDISCLOSURES:

ExcessofExpendituresoverAppropriations:

VariancewithBudget Actual FinalBudget

GeneralFund:Administrative $ 177,140 $ 207,099 $ (29,959)Contractlabor ‐ 1,313 (1,313)Interestexpense 50 53 (3)

7. COMMITMENTSANDCONTINGENCIES:

GrantAwards:

Grant funds received by the Authority are subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Suchauditscouldresultinrequestsforreimbursementstothegrantoragenciesforexpendituresdisallowed under terms of the grant. Management of the Authority believes that suchdisallowances,ifany,wouldnotbesignificant.

Litigation:

In the ordinary course of operations, theAuthority is subject to claims and litigation fromoutside parties. After consultation with legal counsel, the Authority believes the ultimateoutcomeofsuchmatters,ifany,willnotmateriallyaffectitsfinancialcondition.

8. SUBSEQUENTEVENTS:

Events occurring after June 30, 2015 have been evaluated for possible adjustments to thefinancial statements or disclosure as of October23, 2015, which is the date these financialstatementswereavailabletobeissued.

82

REQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

83

Variancewith

Board Actual FinalBudget

Adopted Approved Budgetary Positive

Original Changes Final Basis (Negative)

REVENUES:

Capitalandoperatinggrants 654,892$ -$ 654,892$ 760,325$ 105,433$

Membercontributions 70,000 - 70,000 100,000 30,000

Interestearnings 800 - 800 1,415 615

TOTALREVENUES 725,692 - 725,692 861,740 136,048

EXPENDITURES:

Administrative 177,140 - 177,140 207,099 (29,959)

Contractlabor - - - 1,313 (1,313)

Consulting 569,634 - 569,634 368,405 201,229

Interestexpense 50 - 50 53 (3)

TOTALEXPENDITURES 746,824 - 746,824 576,870 169,954

EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)

OFREVENUESOVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES (21,132) -$ (21,132) 284,870 306,002

FUNDBALANCE-

BEGINNINGOFYEAR 454,001 454,001 454,001 -

FUNDBALANCE-ENDOFYEAR 432,869$ 432,869$ 738,871$ 306,002$

Seeaccompanyingnotetorequiredsupplementaryinformation.


BUDGETARYCOMPARISONSCHEDULE

GENERALFUND


BudgetedAmounts

84


NOTETOREQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION


1. BUDGETSANDBUDGETARYDATA:

TheAuthorityfollowsspecificproceduresinestablishingthebudgetarydatareflectedinthefinancialstatements. EachyeartheAuthority’sAuthorityManagerandExecutiveSecretaryprepareandsubmitanoperatingbudget to theBoardofDirectors for theGeneralFundnolater than June of each year. The basis used to prepare the budget does not differsubstantially from themodified accrual basis of accounting. The adopted budget becomesoperativeonJuly1.TheBoardofDirectorsmustapproveallsupplementalappropriationstothe budget and transfers between major accounts. The Authority’s annual budget ispresentedasabalancedbudget(inflowsandreservesequaloutflowsandreserves)adoptedfortheGeneralFundatthedetailedexpenditure‐typelevel.

TheAuthoritypresentsacomparisonof theannualbudgettoactualresults for theGeneralFundatthefunctionalexpenditure‐typemajorobject level forfinancialreportingpurposes.Thebudgetedexpenditureamountsrepresenttheadoptedbudgetplussupplementalbudgetadoptionsduetothecapitalandoperatinggrantsthatwereawardedaftertheinitialbudgetwasadopted.

85


ORGANIZATION


StateofOrganization

The Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (the Authority) is a Joint Exercise ofPowersAgencycreated to implementprojectsandprogramsto improvethewaterqualityandhabitatinordertopreserveagricultural land,protectwildlifehabitat,andprotectandenhancerecreationalresources,allforthebenefitofthegeneralpublic.

TheAuthoritywasauthorizedandempoweredbytheJointExerciseofPowerspursuanttotheprovisionsofSection6500ofArticle1,Chapter5,Division7,Title1oftheGovernmentCodeoftheStateofCalifornia.

AgencyMembers DateofMembershipCityofCanyonLake April5,2000CityofLakeElsinore April5,2000CountyofRiverside April5,2000ElsinoreValleyMunicipalWaterDistrict April5,2000SantaAnaWatershedProjectAuthority April5,2000

BoardofDirectors AgencyMembersVickiWarren CityofCanyonLakeRobertE.Magee CityofLakeElsinoreKevinJeffries CountyofRiversidePhilWilliams ElsinoreValleyMunicipalWaterDistrictBrendaDennstdt SantaAnaWatershedProjectAuthority

ExecutiveStaffMarkNorton,AuthorityAdministratorKarenWilliams,CFOSAWPA

LegalCounselAklufiandWysocki

AuditorWhiteNelsonDiehlEvansLLPCertifiedPublicAccountants

86

REPORTONINTERNALCONTROLSANDCOMPLIANCE

87



INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’REPORTONINTERNALCONTROLOVERFINANCIALREPORTINGANDONCOMPLIANCEANDOTHERMATTERS

BASEDONANAUDITOFFINANCIALSTATEMENTSPERFORMEDINACCORDANCEWITHGOVERNMENTAUDITINGSTANDARDS

BoardofDirectorsLakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthorityRiverside,California

Wehaveaudited,inaccordancewiththeauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesof America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government AuditingStandards issuedbytheComptrollerGeneralof theUnitedStates, the financialstatementsof thegovernmentalactivitiesandmajorfundoftheLakeElsinore&SanJacintoWatershedsAuthority(theAuthority)asofandfortheyearendedJune30,2015,andtherelatednotestothefinancialstatements,whichcollectivelycomprisetheAuthority’sbasicfinancialstatements,andhaveissuedourreportthereondatedOctober23,2015.

InternalControloverFinancialReporting

Inplanningandperformingourauditof the financialstatements,weconsideredtheAuthority’sinternalcontroloverfinancialreporting(internalcontrol)todeterminetheauditproceduresthatareappropriateinthecircumstancesforthepurposeofexpressingouropiniononthefinancialstatements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of theAuthority’sinternalcontrol.Accordingly,wedonotexpressanopinionontheeffectivenessoftheAuthority’sinternalcontrol.

Adeficiency in internal control existswhen the design or operation of a control does not allowmanagement or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, toprevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is adeficiency,oracombinationofdeficiencies, in internalcontrol, such that there isa reasonablepossibility that a material misstatement of the Authority’s financial statements will not beprevented,ordetectedandcorrectedonatimelybasis.Asignificantdeficiencyisadeficiency,oracombinationofdeficiencies, in internalcontrol that is lessseverethanamaterialweakness,yetimportantenoughtomeritattentionbythosechargedwithgovernance.

Ourconsiderationofinternalcontrolwasforthelimitedpurposedescribedinthefirstparagraphof thissectionandwasnotdesignedto identifyalldeficiencies in internalcontrol thatmightbematerialweaknessesorsignificantdeficiencies.Giventheselimitations,duringourauditwedidnot identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weakness.However,materialweaknessesmayexistthathavenotbeenidentified.

88

ComplianceandOtherMatters

AspartofobtainingreasonableassuranceaboutwhethertheAuthority’sfinancialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement,weperformedtestsofitscompliancewithcertainprovisionsoflaws,regulations,contractsandgrantagreements,noncompliancewithwhichcouldhaveadirectandmaterialeffectonthedeterminationoffinancialstatementamounts.However,providinganopiniononcompliancewiththoseprovisionswasnotanobjectiveofouraudit,andaccordingly,we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances ofnoncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government AuditingStandards.

PurposeofThisReport

Thepurposeof this report is solely todescribe the scopeofour testingof internal control andcomplianceandtheresultsofthattesting,andnottoprovideanopinionontheeffectivenessofthe Authority’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an auditperformed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Authority’sinternal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any otherpurpose.

Irvine,CaliforniaOctober23,2015

89

Page Intentionally Blank

90

LESJWA BOARD MEMORANDUM NO. 780

DATE: December 17, 2015

SUBJECT: Phase 2 TMDL Compliance Monitoring Program

TO: LESJWA Board of Directors

FROM: Mark Norton, P.E., Authority Administrator

RECOMMENDATION The Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force Technical Advisory Committee and LESJWA staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve Change Order No. 1 to Task Order No. AMEC160-01 with AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. for an amount not-to-exceed $31,500. This Change Order provides additional technical support to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force for the following:

1) Modification of the nutrient TMDL In-Lake Monitoring Design2) Management of Historical In-lake Water Quality Monitoring Data3) Interim TMDL Compliance Assessment report preparation.

DISCUSSION To address the need for additional technical support in the implementation of activities relating to the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Phase 2 Compliance Monitoring program, the members of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force Technical Advisory Committee recommend a change order for AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. to conduct the following:

1) Modification of the nutrient TMDL In-Lake Monitoring DesignRequest by Regional Board staff asking modify the recently approved Phase 2 ComplianceMonitoring Plan to increase summer sampling frequency in the lakes. The Task Force hasproposed adding two additional monitoring events (for a total of 8 events per year) into the LakeElsinore portion of the Nutrient TMDL Water Quality Compliance Monitoring Program, starting in2016.

2) Management of Historical In-lake Water Quality Monitoring DataEnhance the usability of historical in-lake water quality data for inclusion in TMDL technicaldocuments to support the update of the nutrient TMDLs and upload into the State’s database.

3) Interim TMDL Compliance Assessment report preparationConduct analyses of historical in-lake and watershed-wide storm water quality data to support thepreparation of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake 2015 Interim Compliance Assessment Report tothe Regional Board.

The attached Change Order details the additional work by AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. to support the LE&CL TMDL Task Force in tasks related to the Phase 2 Compliance Monitoring program. Included with this Task Order is a scope of work and budget providing a detailed description of support services to be performed by the consultant through FY 2015-18.

91

BACKGROUND In June 2015, members of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force Technical Advisory Committee recommended the selection of AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. to conduct the Phase 2 nutrient TMDL Compliance monitoring program in response to a request for proposals.

Through this agreement, AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. will provide the following services to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force, as described in the April 2015, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Phase 2 Compliance Monitoring Work Plan:

• Wet season watershed-wide compliance monitoring• Bi-monthly in-lake monitoring for Lake Elsinore• Bi-monthly in-lake monitoring for Canyon Lake• Contract and coordinate with Babcock laboratories for analytical laboratory services• Coordinate with EVMWD on data sondes operating in Lake Elsinore• Contract and coordinate with Blue Water Satellite for bi-monthly analyses of in-lake chlorophyll-a

using satellite imagery• Coordinate with RCFC&WCD staff on tracking weather for wet season storm events• Prepare for submittal to the Regional Board, annual TMDL Water Quality Compliance Monitoring

Reports.• Provide status updates to the TMDL Task Force.

RESOURCES IMPACT The TMDL Task Force FY 2015-16 Budget provided a budget of $215,000 to conduct watershed-wide nutrient compliance monitoring and related monitoring support activities. All staff contract administration time for this contract will be taken from the TMDL budget and funded by the TMDL Stakeholders.

MN/RW/dm

Attachment: 1. Change Order No. AMEC160-01

92

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY CHANGE ORDER NO. 1

To Task Order No. AMEC160-01

CONSULTANT: AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure VENDOR NO. 1734 9210 Sky Park Court San Diego, CA 92123

PROJECT: San Jacinto Watershed-wide Nutrient TMDL Monitoring

COST: $31,429

REQUESTED BY: Rick Whetsel, Sr. Watershed Manager December 17, 2015

FINANCE: _______________________________________ Karen Williams, CFO Date

FINANCING SOURCE: Acct. Coding: 160-TMDL-6113-01 Acct. Description: TMDL Task Force

BOARD AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED: NO ( ) YES (X) Memo #LES780

Funding for this work previously was authorized 6-18-15; Board Memo No.771

Contractor is hereby directed to provide the extra work necessary to comply with this change order.

DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE: Consultant to provide additional technical support in the implementation of activities relating to the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Phase 2 Compliance Monitoring program, as further detailed in Attachment A. These include:

1. Modification of the nutrient TMDL in-lake monitoring design.2. Management of historical In-lake water quality monitoring data.3. Interim TMDL compliance assessment report preparation

CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: None. June 30, 2016

CHANGE IN TASK ORDER PRICE: Original Task Order Amount $150,805* Change Order No. 1 Amount $ 31,429 Amended Contract Total $182,234

*The total contract value is for $452,415, to be divided equally per task order among the three fiscal yearsof 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18.

ACCEPTANCE: Contractor accepts the terms and conditions stated above as full and final settlement of any claims arising from or related to this Change Order. Contractor agrees to perform the above described work in accordance with the above terms and in compliance with applicable sections of the Contract Specifications. This Change Order is hereby agreed to, accepted and approved, all in accordance with the General Provisions of the Contract Specifications.

93

Change Order No. 1 to Task Order No. AMEC160-01 December 2015

Page 2 of 2 LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY Robert Magee, LESJWA Chair Date AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. _________________________ (Signature) Date Typed/Printed Name

94

Exhibit A – Scope of Services 2015-2016 Monitoring Program Support Mod 1

Page 1 of 3

December 8, 2015

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) 11615 Sterling Avenue Riverside, CA 92503

Attention: Rick Whetsel

Subject: Scope of Work Change Order Request Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Phase 2 Water Quality Compliance Monitoring Program

1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this change order request is three-fold: 1) to include a modification of the in-lake TMDL compliance sampling frequency in Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake as requested by the Santa Ana Regional Water Board (SARWB), 2) to provide a description and costs for extended scope database and QA/QC related efforts requested of Amec Foster Wheeler (Amec FW) for historic TMDL-associated in lake monitoring efforts, and 3) to assist the Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Task Force with completion of the Interim Compliance Assessment Report to also include historic data compilation and database support for other supporting studies in Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake.

A scope of work (SOW) description is provided in Section 2.0, a schedule is presented in Section 3.0, and costs are summarized in Section 4.0.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 – Modification of the Nutrient TMDL In-lake Monitoring Design: Following a request by the Regional Board asking to increase summer sampling frequency in the lakes relative to that in the final TMDL Monitoring Work Plan, the Task Force has proposed adding two additional monitoring events (for a total of 8 events per year) into the Lake Elsinore portion of the Nutrient TMDL Water Quality Compliance Monitoring Program starting in 2016. The enhanced monitoring in Lake Elsinore is justified given the current TMDL criteria for chlorophyll-a, which is based on a summer average for this water body as opposed to an annual average for other constituents. Specifically, the Lake Elsinore monitoring will be modified to include monthly sampling during the summer months (June-September) and bi-monthly sampling during non-summer months (October-May). All other aspects of the sampling design will remain unchanged. In-lake monitoring of Canyon Lake will remain at the current six bi-monthly sampling events (see Table 1) unless specified otherwise, as all constituents for this water body including chlorophyll-a are based on annual average concentrations as opposed to a summer average.

Task 2 – Management of Historical In-Lake Water Quality Data: To enhance the usability of historic monitoring data, at the request of Mr. Rick Whetsel representing the TMDL Task Force, Amec FW has conducted a thorough QA/QC review of available in-lake field and laboratory analytical water quality data for both Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake spanning a period between 2001 and 2012. This has included routine measures of general water quality characteristics (e.g.

ATTACHMENT A

95


Page 2 of 3

pH, DO, temperature, conductivity, Secchi depth), and a variety of nutrient-related analytical data. This period of data collection includes efforts both prior to the adoption of the TMDL (May 2001 – May 2005), and post-adoption TMDL compliance monitoring efforts between April 2006 – June 2012. Data was provided to Amec FW by Mr. Rick Whetsel on August 19, 2015. Effort included a reorganization of station nomenclature to maintain consistency throughout the database, standardization of analyte names, identification of analyte concentration values outside of what would be considered expected ranges, and revision of analyte names to be compatible with CEDEN vocabulary. Once complete, this data will then be uploaded to the statewide CEDEN database. This effort has not yet included a QA/QC review and incorporation of in situ data collected by the EVMWD data sondes or other special studies.

Task 3 – Interim Compliance Assessment Report Including Data QA/QC and CEDEN Entry of Canyon Lake Alum Effectiveness Study and Compilation of Additional In-Lake Monitoring Data Amec FW will assist Mr. Tim Moore in drafting the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake 2015 Interim Compliance Assessment Report. This report will summarize key findings to date with regard to water quality trends and TMDL compliance. This effort will also incorporate innovative methods to better assess key water quality parameters with respect to existing TMDL targets using both current and past compliance monitoring data along with supporting data from other sources (i.e. EVMWD data sondes and satellite imagery). Efforts will help identify more appropriate averaging methods and support the basis for revised future TMDL targets in support of the re-opener process. Specific tasks for Amec FW are not defined at this point, therefore this should be treated as an on-demand task with associated costs as a not-to-exceed value.

Two main subtasks the reporting effort include the following: 1) Conversion of all alum effectiveness monitoring data for Canyon Lake collected by Dr. Jim

Noblet of California State University-San Bernardino into a single CEDEN compatible databaseincluding a QA/QC review for anomalous values and appropriate QA flags.

2) Compile a bibliography of available relevant studies related to water quality, sediment quality,and aquatic biological communities in Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, along with a briefsummary of key findings. This task will also include organizing and formatting of the literatureinto a searchable database, ideally as a part of the LESJWA website. Those datasets amendableto inclusion into a database will be identified.

3.0 SCHEDULE OF WORKTable 1 summarizes the proposed monitoring schedule for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake under the new revised sampling design.

Table 1: 2016 Proposed Revised Schedule of In-lake Monitoring Month Monitored

Water Body J F M A M J J A S O N D Lake Elsinore ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Canyon Lake ● ● ● ● ● ●

96


Page 3 of 3

4.0 COST Table 2 summarizes total estimated costs for the four change order tasks outlined above. The costs presented in Task 1 are those for the entire annual Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Program (i.e. watershed and in-lake monitoring). The total estimated cost for this change order including a monitoring frequency of six events in Canyon Lake and eight in Lake Elsinore is $182,234. A more detailed comparison of the three costing scenarios related to lake monitoring frequency is provided as an attachment for reference including the following: 1) 6 events both lakes (original scope); 2) 8 events LE/6 events CL (proposed revision); and 3) 8 events both lakes (for reference if needed at a later date). The period of performance of this TO is from July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

Table 2: Cost Estimate Summary Task Labor Total

1. Revised Monitoring Design (Implementedannually) --- $5,829

2. Historical In-Lake Water Quality DataManagement $5,600 $5,600

3. Interim Compliance Assessment ReportIncl. data QA/QC and CEDEN-compatibleformatting of Alum Effectiveness Data forCanyon Lake, and Compilation ofAdditional In-Lake Monitoring Data

$20,000 $20,000

TOTAL $25,600 $31,429 na – not applicable

If you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. We look forward to continuing our work with the LESJWA on these important projects.

Sincerely,

Chris Stransky Amec Foster Wheeler Project Manager

97

Page Intentionally Blank

98



SUBJECT: Revise and Update Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDLs


FROM: Mark Norton, P.E., Authority Administrator

RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force Technical Advisory Committee recommend that the Board of Directors authorize a General Services Agreement and Task Order No. CDM160-01 with CDM Smith, Inc. for an amount not-to-exceed $300,000, to initiate the effort to Revise and Update Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDLs.

DISCUSSION In response to a request for qualifications issued in October 2015, the members of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force Technical Advisory Committee unanimously recommend the selection of CDM Smith to lead the effort to revise and update the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake nutrient TMDLs. CDM Smith was selected by a proposal technical review committee composed of task force agencies based upon the consultant’s substantial knowledge of the TMDLs and professional expertise of consultants assembled for their team. Four qualification statements with proposals were received from four firms, and interviews were conducted with the following firms: CDM Smith, Larry Walker & Associates and Tetra Tech. Based on the expertise provided by Tetra Tech particularly with working with EPA on TMDLs, the CDM Smith firm was recommended for the work with some support services to be provided by Tetra Tech as a subconsultant.

The General Services Agreement and Task Order with CDM Smith (attached) will initiate the effort to revise and update the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake nutrient TMDLs. Included with this initial Task Order is a scope of work and budget providing a detailed description of support services to be performed by the consultant within the next calendar year, as highlighted below:

• Task 1 – Prepare TMDL Technical Document chaptersTask 1.1 – Background / Problem Statement Chapter 1 Task 1.2 – Problem Statement Chapter 2 Task 1.3 – Numeric Targets Chapter 3 Task 1.4 – Source Analysis Chapter 4 Task 1.5 – Linkage Analysis Chapter 5

• Task 4 – Establish Administrative Record

• Task 6 – TMDL Task Force Meetings & Project Coordination

It is anticipated that the effort to revise and update the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake nutrient TMDLs will continue through to 2020, include several additional task orders with the majority of the consultant work to be completed by June 2018.

99

BACKGROUND In June of 2015, the LECL Task Force petitioned the Santa Ana Water Board to reopen and revise the Nutrient TMDLs based on the wealth of new information developed over the last 10 years. The Santa Ana Water Board agreed to make this effort a high priority as part of the recent Triennial Review (R8-2015-0085). As part of this agreement, the LE/CL Task Force has accepted responsibility to develop the documentation needed to update and amend the Nutrient TMDL for Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. The reason for the TMDL update is to reflect the significant amount of new data that has developed since the LECL-TMDL was first enacted. This information has fundamentally transformed our understanding of how nutrient loading affects the lakes under both natural, undeveloped and current land use conditions. The scientific studies commissioned by the Task Force have shown conclusively that many of the modeling assumptions used to develop the original TMDL were not accurate. Further, the land use has changed, regulatory policies and permits have been revised, and more specificity is needed to clarify compliance. The work by CDM Smith over the next three fiscal years will require significant scientific and regulatory justification for approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA RESOURCES IMPACT The TMDL Task Force FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 Budgets provide respective budgets of $200,000 and $300,000 to Revise and Update Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDLs. All staff contract administration time for this contract will be taken from the TMDL budget and funded by the TMDL Stakeholders. MN/RW/dm Attachment: 1. Agreement for Services 2. Task Order No. CDM 3. CDM Smith Scope of Work

100

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

THIS AGREEMENT is made this 17th day of December, 2015 by and between the Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA) whose address is 11615 Sterling Ave., Riverside, CA 92503, and CDM Smith, Inc. ("Consultant") whose address is 600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 750, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

RECITALS This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings, and intentions of the parties to this Agreement:

A. LESJWA desires to engage the professional services of Consultant to perform such professional consulting services as may be assigned, from time to time, by LESJWA in writing.

B. Consultant agrees to provide such services pursuant to, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and has represented and warrants to LESJWA that Consultant possesses the necessary skills, qualifications, personnel, and equipment to provide such services.

C. The services to be performed by Consultant shall be specifically described in one or more written Task Orders issued by LESJWA to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and mutual covenants contained herein, LESJWA and Consultant agree as follows:

ARTICLE I TERM OF AGREEMENT

1.01 Term of Agreement. This agreement shall become effective on the date first above written and shall continue until December 31, 2019, unless extended or sooner terminated as provided for herein.

ARTICLE II SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED

2.01 Consultant agrees to provide such professional consulting services as may be assigned, from time to time, in writing by the Board and the Authority Administrator of LESJWA. Each such assignment shall be made in the form of a written Task Order. Each such Task Order shall include, but shall not be limited to, a description of the nature and scope of the services to be performed by Consultant, the amount of compensation to be paid, and the expected time of completion. 2.02 Consultant may, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense, employ such competent and qualified independent professional associates, subcontractors, and consultants as Consultant deems necessary to perform each such assignment; provided, however, that Consultant shall not subcontract any of the work to be performed without the prior written consent of LESJWA.

ARTICLE III COMPENSATION

3.01 In consideration for the services to be performed by Consultant, LESJWA agrees to pay Consultant as provided for in each Task Order. 3.02 Each Task Order shall specify a total not-to-exceed sum of money and shall be based upon the regular hourly rates customarily charged by Consultant to its clients, as set forth on an exhibit to be attached to each Task Order issued to Consultant. 3.03 Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered nor reimbursed for any expenses incurred in excess of those authorized in any Task Order unless approved in advance by the Board of Directors and Authority Administrator of LESJWA, in writing.

101

3.04 Unless otherwise provided for in any Task Order issued pursuant to this Agreement, payment of compensation earned shall be made in monthly installments after receipt from Consultant of a timely, detailed, corrected, written invoice by LESJWA’s Project Manager, describing, without limitation, the services performed, the time spent performing such services, the hourly rate charged therefore, and the identity of individuals performing such services for the benefit of LESJWA. Such invoices shall also include a detailed itemization of expenses incurred. Such invoices shall be received in LESJWA’s office on or before the 15th day of the month, for payment on or about the 15th day of the following month. All payments are made on or about the 15th day of the month. Each such invoice shall be provided to LESJWA by Consultant within 15 days after the end of the month in which the services were performed.

ARTICLE IV OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT

4.01 Consultant agrees to perform all assigned services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those specified in each Task Order. 4.02 Except as otherwise provided for in each Task Order, Consultant will supply all personnel and equipment required to perform the assigned services. 4.03 Consultant shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of its employees and agents in performing the services assigned by LESJWA. Consultant hereby covenants and agrees to: a. Obtain a comprehensive general liability and automobile insurance policy, including

contractual coverage, with combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00. Such policy shall name LESJWA, and any other interested and related party designated by LESJWA, as an additional insured, with any right to subrogation waived as to LESJWA and such designated interested and related party;

b. Obtain a policy of professional liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 per claim or occurrence to cover any negligent acts or omissions committed

by Consultant, its employees and/or agents in the performance of any services for LESJWA;

c. Comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations;

d. Provide worker’s compensation insurance or a California Department of Insurance-approved self-insurance program in an amount and form that meets all applicable Labor Code requirements, covering all persons or entities providing services on behalf of the Consultant’s and all risks to such persons or entities.

e. Consultant shall require any subcontractor that Consultant uses for work performed for

LESJWA under this Agreement or related Task Order to obtain the insurance coverages specified above.

f. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of Consultant may seek

to require from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant shall obtain an endorsement that may be necessary to give effect to this waiver of subrogation. In addition, the Workers Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of LESJWA for all work performed by Consultant, and its employees, agents and subcontractors.

All such insurance policy or policies shall be issued by a responsible insurance company with a minimum A. M. Best Rating of “A-“ Financial Category “X”, and authorized and admitted to do business in, and regulated by, the State of California. If the insurance company is not admitted in the State of California, it must be on the List of Eligible Surplus Line Insurers (LESLI), shall have a minimum A.M. Best Rating of “A”, Financial Category “X”, and shall be domiciled in the United States, unless otherwise approved by LESJWA in writing. Each such policy of insurance shall expressly provide that it shall be

102

primary and noncontributory with any policies carried by LESJWA and, to the extent obtainable, such coverage shall be payable notwithstanding any act of negligence of LESJWA that might otherwise result in forfeiture of coverage. Evidence of all insurance coverage shall be provided to LESJWA prior to issuance of the first Task Order. Such policies shall provide that they shall not be canceled or amended without 30 day prior written notice to LESJWA. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that such insurance is in addition to Consultant’s obligation to fully indemnify and hold LESJWA free and harmless from and against any and all claims arising out of an injury or damage to property or persons caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant in performing services assigned by LESJWA. 4.04 Consultant hereby covenants and agrees that LESJWA, its officers, employees, and agents shall not be liable for any claims, liabilities, penalties, fines or any damage to property, whether real or personal, nor for any personal injury or death caused by, or resulting from, or claimed to have been caused by or resulting from, any negligent act or omission of Consultant. Further, Consultant hereby covenants and agrees to fully indemnify and save LESJWA, its agents, officers and employees, free and harmless from and against any and all of the foregoing liabilities or claims of any kind, and shall reimburse LESJWA for all costs or expenses that LESJWA incurs (including attorneys' fees) on account of any of the foregoing liabilities, including liabilities or claims made by reason of defects in the performance of consulting services pursuant to this Agreement, unless the liability or claim is proximately caused by LESJWA’s negligent act or omission. 4.05 In the event that LESJWA requests that specific employees or agents of Consultant supervise or otherwise perform the services specified in each Task Order, Consultant shall ensure that such individual (or individuals) shall be appointed and assigned the responsibility of performing the services. 4.06 In the event Consultant is required to prepare plans, drawings, specifications and/or estimates, the same shall be furnished with a registered professional engineer’s number and shall conform to local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Consultant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals in connection with this Agreement, any Task Order or Change Order. However, in the event LESJWA is required to obtain such an approval or permit from another governmental entity, Consultant shall provide all necessary supporting documents to be filed with such entity, and shall facilitate the acquisition of such approval or permit.

ARTICLE V OBLIGATIONS OF LESJWA

5.01 LESJWA shall a. Furnish all existing studies, reports and other available data pertinent to each Task Order that are in LESJWA’s possession;

b. Designate a person to act as liaison between Consultant and the Authority Administrator and Board of Directors of LESJWA.

ARTICLE VI

ADDITIONAL SERVICES, CHANGES AND DELETIONS 6.01 During the term of this Agreement, the Board of Directors of LESJWA may, from time to time and without affecting the validity of this Agreement or any Task Order issued pursuant thereto, order changes, deletions, and additional services by the issuance of written Change Orders authorized and approved by the Board of Directors of LESJWA. 6.02 In the event Consultant performs additional or different services than those described in any Task Order or authorized Change Order without the prior written approval of the Board of LESJWA, Consultant shall not be compensated for such services.

103

6.03 Consultant shall promptly advise LESJWA as soon as reasonably practicable upon gaining knowledge of a condition, event, or accumulation of events, which may affect the scope and/or cost of services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement. All proposed changes, modifications, deletions, and/or requests for additional services shall be reduced to writing for review and approval or rejection by the Board of Directors of LESJWA. 6.04 In the event that LESJWA orders services deleted or reduced, compensation shall be deleted or reduced by a comparable amount as determined by LESJWA and Consultant shall only be compensated for services actually performed. In the event additional services are properly authorized, payment for the same shall be made as provided in Article III above.

ARTICLE VII CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:

CHANGE ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT 7.01 In the event LESJWA authorizes Consultant to perform construction management services for LESJWA, Consultant may determine, in the course of providing such services, that a Change Order should be issued to the construction contractor, or Consultant may receive a request for a Change Order from the construction contractor. Consultant shall, upon receipt of any requested Change Order or upon gaining knowledge of any condition, event, or accumulation of events, which may necessitate issuing a Change Order to the construction contractor, promptly consult with the liaison, Authority Administrator and Board of LESJWA. No Change Order shall be issued or executed without the prior approval of the Board of Directors of LESJWA.

ARTICLE VIII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

8.01 In the event the time specified for completion of an assigned task in a Task Order exceeds the term of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for such additional time as is necessary to complete such Task Order, and thereupon this Agreement shall automatically terminate without further notice. 8.02 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, LESJWA, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving 10 day written notice to Consultant, whether or not a Task Order has been issued to Consultant. 8.03 In the event of termination, the payment of monies due Consultant for work performed prior to the effective date of such termination shall be paid after receipt of an invoice as provided in this Agreement.

ARTICLE IX STATUS OF CONSULTANT

9.01 Consultant shall perform the services assigned by LESJWA in Consultant’s own way as an independent contractor, and in pursuit of Consultant’s independent calling, and not as an employee of LESJWA. Consultant shall be under the control of LESJWA only as to the result to be accomplished and the personnel assigned to perform services. However, Consultant shall regularly confer with LESJWA’s liaison, Authority Administrator, and Board of Directors as provided for in this Agreement. 9.02 Consultant hereby specifically represents and warrants to LESJWA that the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the standards customarily applicable to an experienced and competent professional consulting organization rendering the same or similar services. Further, Consultant represents and warrants that the individual signing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant has the full authority to bind Consultant to this Agreement.

104

ARTICLE X AUDIT; OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

10.01 All draft and final reports, plans, drawings, specifications, data, notes, and all other documents of any kind or nature prepared or developed by Consultant in connection with the performance of services assigned to it by LESJWA are the sole property of LESJWA, and Consultant shall promptly deliver all such materials to LESJWA. Consultant may retain copies of the original documents, at its option and expense. 10.02 Consultant shall retain and maintain, for a period not less than four years following termination of this Agreement, all time records, accounting records, and vouchers and all other records with respect to all matters concerning services performed, compensation paid and expenses reimbursed. At any time during normal business hours and as often as LESJWA may deem necessary, Consultant shall make available to LESJWA’s agents for examination of all such records and will permit LESJWA’s to audit, examine and reproduce such records.

ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

11.01 This Agreement supersedes any and all previous agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by Consultant for LESJWA and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties. 11.02 Consultant shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights or interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of LESJWA. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. 11.03 In the event Consultant is an individual person, and Consultant dies prior to completion of this Agreement or any Task Order issued hereunder, any monies earned that may be due Consultant from LESJWA as of the date of death will be paid to Consultant’s estate. 11.04 Time is of the essence in the performance of services required hereunder. Extensions of time within which to perform services may be granted by LESJWA if requested by Consultant and agreed to in writing by LESJWA. All such requests must be documented and substantiated and will only be granted as the result of unforeseeable and unavoidable delays not caused by the lack of foresight on the part of Consultant. 11.05 Consultant shall comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations including those regarding nondiscrimination and the payment of prevailing wages. 11.06 LESJWA expects that Consultant will devote its full energies, interest, abilities and productive time to the performance of its duties and obligations under Agreement, and shall not engage in any other consulting activity that would interfere with the performance of Consultant’s duties under this Agreement or create any conflicts of interest. If required by law, Consultant shall file Conflict of Interest Statements with LESJWA. 11.07 Any dispute which may arise by and between LESJWA and the Consultant, including the Consultant’s associates, subcontractor or other consultants, shall be submitted to binding arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, Inc., or its successor, or any other neutral, impartial arbitration service that the parties mutually agree upon, in accordance with its rules in effect at the time of the commencement of the arbitration proceeding, and as set forth in this paragraph. The arbitrator must decide each and every dispute in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all other applicable laws. The arbitrator’s decision and award are subject to judicial review

105

by a Superior Court of competent venue and jurisdiction only for material errors of fact or law in accordance with Section 1296 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Limited discovery may be permitted upon a showing of good cause and approved by the assigned arbitrator. Unless the parties stipulate to the contrary, prior to the appointment of the arbitrator, all disputes shall first be submitted to non-binding mediation, conducted by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., or its successor, or any other neutral, impartial mediation service that the parties mutually agree upon, in accordance with their rules and procedures for such mediation. 11.08 During the performance of the Agreement, Consultant, and its subcontractors, shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care leave. Consultant, and its subcontractors, shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Consultant, and its subcontractors, shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12290 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 et seq., set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Consultant, and its subcontractors, shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. Consultant shall include the non-discrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this Agreement for Services as of the day and year first above-written.

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY By_________________________________________ Robert Magee, Chair Date CDM SMITH, INC. By_________________________________________ _________________________ Date Print/Type Name

106

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY TASK ORDER NO. CDM160-01

CONSULTANT: CDM Smith, Inc. VENDOR 1575 600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 750 Los Angeles, CA 90017

COST: $300,000

PAYMENT: Monthly, upon receipt of proper invoice

REQUESTED BY: Rick Whetsel, Sr. Watershed Manager December 17, 2015

FINANCE: ____ Karen Williams, CFO Date

FINANCING SOURCE: Acct. Coding 160-TMDL-6113-01 Acct. Description TMDL Task Force

BOARD AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED: YES (X) NO ( ) Board Memo #781

This Task Order is issued by the Lake Elsinore & San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (hereafter “LESJWA”) to CDM Smith, Inc. (hereafter “Consultant”) pursuant to the Agreement between LESJWA and Consultant entitled Agreement for Services, dated December 17, 2015 (expires 12-31-2019).

I. PROJECT NAME OR DESCRIPTION Update and Revise the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDLs

II. SCOPE OF WORK / TASKS TO BE PERFORMEDConsultant shall provide all labor, materials, and equipment for the project to perform the taskof providing technical support to the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force toassist the Task Force in updating and revising the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDLs asfurther detailed in the scope of work, Attachment A. This work includes the preparation of thefollowing:

1. TMDL Technical Document2. Substitute Environmental Document (SED)3. Economic Analysis4. Administrative Record

Consultant also shall prepare for and attend regular meetings of the TMDL Task Force in order to coordinate development of the various deliverables and report on current progress. Please refer to Appendix X for acceptable deliverable formats

III. PERFORMANCE TIME FRAMEConsultant shall begin work within five days of the date this Task Order is signed by theAuthorized Officer and shall complete performance of such services by or before December 31,2016.

107

IV. LESJWA LIAISON Rick Whetsel and/or Mark Norton shall serve as liaison between LESJWA and Consultant.

V. COMPENSATION For all services rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Task Order, Consultant shall receive a total not-to-exceed sum of $300,000 in accordance with the rate schedule as shown in the Scope of Work. Payment for such services shall be made within 30 days upon receipt of proper invoices from Consultant, as required by the above-mentioned Agreement for Services. The compensation to be paid herein is subject to LESJWA/SAWPA’s receipt of funds for this Task Order from third parties. The Consultant shall limit activities to ensure not to expend funds that have been collected, and shall curtail activities, as required, to stay within the funds available. LESJWA/SAWPA will endeavor to obtain the funds needed to fully fund the scope of work.

VI. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PRECEDENCE In the event of a conflict in terms between and among the contract documents herein, the document item highest in precedence shall control. The precedence shall be: a. The Agreement for Services by Independent Consultant/Contractor. b. The Task Order or Orders issued pursuant to the Agreement, in numerical order. c. Exhibits attached to each Task Order, which may describe, among other things, the

Scope of Work and compensation therefore. d. Specifications incorporated by reference. e. Drawings incorporated by reference.

In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Task Order on the date indicated below. LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY ______________________________________________ Robert Magee, LESJWA Chair Date CDM SMITH, INC. ___________________________________________ _____________________ (Signature) Date Print or Type Name Common/Admin/Contracts/Drafted/LESJWA/CDMSmithTaskOrdCDM160-01

108

Project Description

Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore are on California's 303(d) list of Impaired Waterbodies due to excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen resulting from elevated nutrients concentrations. In December of 2004, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) adopted a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address these water quality impairments (R8-2004-0037). The TMDL established Final Causal Targets for nitrogen and phosphorus. The TMDL also established Interim and Final Targets for chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen. The TMDL specified Wasteload Allocations (WLA) for point sources and Load Allocations (LA) for non-point sources. Compliance with these allocations, and attainment of the Final Targets, is required by the end of 2020.

Immediately after the TMDL was approved, stakeholders in the watershed for a voluntary Task Force to manage and coordinate all implementation efforts. The Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake (LECL) Task Force is comprised of (a) representatives from Riverside County and all of the incorporated cities named in the TMDL; (b) representatives from the Western Riverside County Agricultural Coalition (WRCAC); and (c) several state and federal agencies. The LECL Task Force generally meets monthly and Santa Ana Water Board staff regularly attends these meetings.

In the decade since the TMDL was adopted, a number of critical implementation activities, approved by the Santa Ana Water Board, have been completed or are being carried out to support efforts to achieve compliance with the TMDL:

• LECL Task Force has implemented a comprehensive water quality monitoring program for both lakes and the surrounding watershed.

• LECL Task Force developed a long-term nutrient management strategy. • MS4 co-permittees developed a Comprehensive Nutrient Reduction Plan (CNRP); • WRCAC developed an Agricultural Nutrient Management Plan (AgNMP) for agricultural

operators; • Alum application program in Canyon Lake; • Operation of Aeration/Mixing Systems in Lake Elsinore; and • Initiation of numerous Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed.

While working to achieve compliance with the Nutrient TMDLs, the LECL Task Force also provided significant financial support to update the water quality models used to develop the original TMDL. This includes more recent land use maps, more accurate watershed runoff models and more sophisticated in-lake models. Collectively, all of this effort has resulted in a better understanding of the various natural and anthropogenic factors that influence water quality in both lakes.

In June of 2015, the LECL Task Force petitioned the Santa Ana Water Board to reopen and revise the Nutrient TMDLs based on the wealth of new information developed over the last 10 years. The Santa Ana Water Board agreed to make this effort a high priority as part of the recent Triennial Review (R8-2015-0085). As part of this agreement, the LECL Task Force has accepted responsibility to develop the documentation needed to update and amend the Nutrient TMDL for Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. The Scope of Work described below will provide this needed documentation.

109

General Services Agreement

Overall Scope of Work

Task 1 - Prepare TMDL Technical Document

CDM Smith will prepare the TMDL Technical Document that provides the technical justification to support proposed changes to the current TMDL. This Technical Document will be similar in form and content to a similar report prepared by the Santa Ana Water Board to establish the original TMDLs (June 4, 2004). Table 1 summarizes the major chapters to be included in this report and expected content.

Table 1. Expected Content of TMDL Technical Document

Chapter Content

Chapter 1 – Background Summarizes the current TMDL, Task Force process, previous implementation activities and need for revising the TMDL.

Chapter 2 – Problem Statement

Summarizes the basis for the original 303(d) listing and characterizes current water quality conditions and trends. Highlights the asymmetric nature of external nutrient loads to both lakes. Separate Main Body and East Branch of Canyon Lake. Describe constraints on zooplankton populations caused by naturally elevated salinity conditions in Lake Elsinore.

Chapter 3 – Numeric Targets

Translate narrative water quality objective into appropriate response targets for chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia. Specify appropriate causal targets for nitrogen and phosphorus to assure attainment of the recommended response targets. All targets should take into consideration modeling data indicating the concentrations estimated to occur under natural, pre-development land use conditions and should recommend appropriate averaging periods. Separate Main Body and East Branch of Canyon Lake.

Chapter 4 – Source Analysis

Estimate current internal and external nutrient loads to both lakes from all significant point and non-point sources. This task will rely on the updated watershed runoff model (2010), updated land use maps (2015), and updated lake model simulations previously developed by the Task Force. Separate Main Body and East Branch of Canyon Lake. Explicitly account for loads that originate above Canyon Lake but are ultimately transferred to Lake Elsinore.

Chapter 5 – Linkage Analysis

Develop a Total Maximum Daily Load to meet the numeric targets using the updated lake simulation models. Prepare justification for using averaging periods other than "daily" time steps.

Chapter 6 – Wasteload and Load Allocations

Specify the Wasteload Allocation for point sources and the Load Allocation for non-point sources required to meet achieve consistent compliance with the TMDL developed in the Linkage Analysis. Separate Main Body and East Branch of Canyon Lake.

Chapter 7 – Implementation and Planning Requirements

Identify the specific implementation obligations required for regulated discharges (including a schedule of deliverables). Establish legal basis for authorizing Offset Programs to achieve necessary load reductions. Prepare technical justification for long-term compliance schedules if necessary.

Chapter 8 – Monitoring Requirements

Describe minimum monitoring requirements for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake and the watershed tributary to these lakes. Specify when a new monitoring plan must be submitted for Regional Board approval.

Chapter 9 - References Comprehensive bibliography (with corresponding document reference ID# in the Administrative Record).

110

Task 2 - Prepare a Substitute Environmental Document (SED)

CDM Smith will prepare the SED to support any proposed revisions to the existing Nutrient TMDLs and comply with CEQA requirements. The SED will follow the general format and structure used by the Regional Boards for other recent TMDLs and Basin Plan amendments. The SED will include (a) a thorough Alternatives Analysis; (b) a complete CEQA Checklist; (c) identify the "reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance"; and (d) discuss the potential environmental impacts associated with revising the TMDL. or purposes of preparing the SED, the "No Project Condition" will be defined as continuing to implement the existing Nutrient TMDLs (adopted in December, 2004) without revision.

Task 3 – Prepare an Economic Analysis

CDM Smith will prepare an Economic Analysis that characterizes the costs and benefits associated with revising the TMDLs and compares those impacts (both positive and negative) with the No Project Alternative. The purpose of this document, which will take into consideration the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance identified in the SED (Task 2), will not be to justify costs based on benefits but, rather, to describe both as accurately as possible in order to inform the Regional Board's decision-making process as specified in §13000 and §13241 of the California Water Code.

Task 4 – Establish Administrative Record

CDM Smith will compile, organize and index the entire Administrative Record (AR) for the recommended TMDL revisions and the proposed Basin Plan amendments. The AR shall contain copies of all documents used to develop the revised TMDL, including all technical reports, scientific studies, meeting minutes and agendas, handouts, PowerPoint presentation, letters, memoranda, public comments and responses.

Task 5 – Final Document Preparation

CDM Smith will assemble all final deliverables from Tasks 1 -4 into a package to support the proposed Basin Plan amendments to revise the Nutrient TMDLs. This effort will include a detailed description of any recommended changes to the current Basin Plan (in both track changes and clean versions). Note, this task does not include the (1) Scientific Peer Review report; (2) the Santa Ana Water Board’s Staff Report; (3) the Response to Public Comments; (4) the final Basin Plan amendment language; or (5) the Basin Plan amendment adoption resolution. The Santa Ana Water Board staff has primary responsibility for preparing these five items.

Task 6 – TMDL Task Force Meetings & Project Coordination

CDM Smith will prepare for and attend regular meetings of the TMDL Task Force in order to coordinate development of the various deliverables and report on current progress. In addition, CDM Smith will participate in teleconferences with Santa Ana Water Board staff, Task Force representatives, LESJWA, and technical team members as needed to complete the project.

111

Task Order 1

Scope of Work

Work to be completed by September 30, 2016 is described in the following project task descriptions.


CDM Smith will prepare the TMDL Technical Document that provides the technical justification to support proposed changes to the current TMDL. Under Task Order 1, the following work will be executed under each subtask:

Task 1.1 – Background Chapter 1

CDM Smith will work with LESJWA Contractor Risk Sciences to develop the Background Chapter (see Table 1-1 for expected content) for the revised Nutrient TDMLs. Risk Sciences will prepare the preliminary draft which will be reviewed and revised in collaboration with Risk Sciences to produce a Draft Background Chapter for review by the LECL TMDL Task Force. Based on the comments received, CDM Smith will work with Risk Sciences to prepare a Final Background Chapter for inclusion in the TMDL Technical Document. Responses to comments on the draft will be documented.

Deliverables: (a) Draft Background Chapter by January 29, 2016; (b) Final Background Chapter with response to comments by May 27, 2016.

Task 1.2 – Problem Statement Chapter 2

CDM Smith will prepare a draft Problem Statement Chapter for the revised Nutrient TMDLs. The chapter will include the following information:

• Basis for the original 303(d) impairment findings for both lakes • Characterization of water quality conditions and trends, with emphasis on water quality

observations since adoption of the TMDL. • Characterization of external nutrient loading to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore, with emphasis on

the asymmetric nature of external nutrient loading as a result of the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed.

• Summarization of findings from studies on Canyon Lake that demonstrate the need to separate the main body and east branch of the lake when considering numeric targets, loadings, etc.

• Characterization of internal cyclical processes in Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore that have been identified through research studies, e.g., zooplankton populations, algal dynamics, salinity concentrations, nutrient fluxes, etc.

• Other key findings from research completed since TMDL adoption that are relevant to the Problem Statement Chapter

Deliverables: (a) Draft Problem Statement Chapter by February 26, 2016; (b) Final Problem Statement Chapter with response to comments by May 27, 2016.

Task 1.3 – Numeric Targets Chapter 3

Taking into account existing modeling data that indicate the concentrations of constituents expected to occur under natural/pre-development land use conditions, CDM Smith will develop revised, but

112

appropriate response targets for chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia, and causal targets for nitrogen and phosphorus to assure attainment of the recommended response target (it is assumed that Dr. Michael Anderson will have [a] finished up his update to DYRESM-CAEDYM for Lake Elsinore; [b] updated the predeveloped condition baseline model for Canyon Lake to break out the Main Body and East Bay; [c] built in the new sediment diagenesis routine as is underway for Lake Elsinore). Proposed response or causal targets will be developed for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake (both Main Body and East Bay). Development of proposed numeric targets will include proposed implementation requirements, e.g., how will compliance with the proposed numeric targets be assessed – both temporally and spatially, e.g., averaging periods and points of compliance or details on development of cumulative probability density functions from long-term data.

Deliverables: (a) Draft Numeric Response Targets by March 25, 2016; (b) Draft Numeric Causal Targets by April 29, 2016; (c) Final Numeric Response Targets by July 29, 2016 with response to comments on the draft document; (d) Final Numeric Causal Targets by July 29, 2016 with response to comments on draft document.

Task 1.4 – Source Analysis Chapter 4

CDM Smith will estimate current internal and external nutrient loads to both lakes from all significant point and non-point sources. This task will rely on Task Force directed research and newly generated data, including:

• Updated 2010 watershed runoff model; • Updated 2015 land use maps; • Updated information regarding watershed characteristics (e.g., loads from the upper watershed,

nutrient load fate and transport within San Jacinto River and Salt Creek); • Updated lake model simulations; and • Other key findings from research completed since TMDL adoption that are relevant to the Source

Analysis.

Development of the source analysis will consider the Main Body and East Bay of Canyon Lake separately and explicitly account for loads that originate above Canyon Lake but are ultimately transferred to Lake Elsinore.

Deliverables: (a) Draft Source Analysis Chapter by May 27, 2016; (b) Final Source Analysis Chapter with response to comments on the draft document by August 26, 2016.

Task 1.5 – Linkage Analysis Chapter 5

Based on the findings from previous tasks, CDM Smith will develop a TMDL to meet the numeric targets using the updated lake simulation models and information from the watershed. This effort will include review of input parameters and development and simulation of different scenarios for existing loads and the TMDL. The existing loads scenario would involve calibration and thus be used to show the model simulation produces a scientifically defensible result, and the same parameters may be used to approximate water quality under predeveloped or TMDL loading rates over an even longer range of hydrology. This task will include preparation of justification for using an alternative compliance period, e.g., using averaging periods or data distributions, rather than "daily" time steps as is typical practice for

113

development of a TMDL. Under Task Order No. 1, CDM Smith will prepare the Draft Linkage Analysis Chapter. The Final Linkage Analysis Chapter will be prepared under a subsequent Task Order.

Deliverables: Draft Linkage Analysis Chapter by September 30, 2016.

Task 1.6 – WLAs and LAs Chapter 6

No Activity in Task Order 1

Task 1.7 – Implementation Plan Chapter 7


Task 1.8 – Monitoring Requirements Chapter 8


Task 1.9 – References Chapter 9

References will be documented as deliverables are developed for Subtasks 1.1 through 1.5. This information will remain in draft form until all of Task 1 subtasks are drafted.

Deliverables: None for Task Order No. 1

Task 2 – Prepare Substitute Environmental Document


Task 3 – Prepare Economic Analyses


Task 4 – Establish Administrative Record

On an ongoing basis and as task work is completed, CDM Smith will compile information that must be included in the Administrative Record for the Basin Plan amendment.

Deliverables: None for Task Order No. 1

Task 5 – Prepare Final Documentation



CDM Smith will prepare for and participate in TMDL Task Force meetings on a monthly basis throughout the duration of Task Order No. 1. The purpose of these meetings is to (a) reach consensus where needed on technical issues regarding how to best meet the deliverables for specific tasks; and (b) in general coordinate/collaborate with Task Force members on progress being made on the project. CDM Smith will prepare handouts and PowerPoint materials as needed for each meeting. CDM Smith will work with LESJWA to ensure decisions during Task Force meetings that will affect project deliverables are documented appropriately in Task Force Meeting Notes. CDM Smith will also participate in periodic teleconferences with LESJWA, Risk Sciences, and Task Force Stakeholders on an as needed basis to facilitate execution of the overall project. Any project management activities, e.g., processing of

114

subcontractor invoices and preparation of invoices by CDM Smith’s contract administrator will be covered under this task.

Deliverables: (a) monthly Task Force meetings through September 2016, including delivery of necessary handouts and presentation materials to support the meetings; (b) periodic teleconferences; and (c) project management-related work, e.g., processing of subcontractor invoices and preparation of monthly invoices for submittal to LESJWA.

Task Order No. 1 Budget

Table 2 provides the estimated budget for the scope of the work for each of the tasks where work will be conducted under Task Order No. 1 to produce the described deliverables.

Table 2. Task Order No. 1 Budget

Task Subtask Budget


1.1 – Background $15,000

1.2 – Problem Statement $35,000

1.3 – Numeric Targets $70,000

1.4 – Source Analysis $70,000

1.5 – Linkage Analysis $50,000

1.6 – WLAs and LAs $0

1.7 – Implementation Plan $0

1.8 – Monitoring Requirements $0

1.9 - References $5,000 Task 2 – Prepare Substitute Environmental Document To be determined $0

Task 3 – Prepare Economic Analyses To be determined $0

Task 4 – Establish Administrative Record To be determined $5,000

Task 5 – Prepare Final Documentation To be determined $0


Not applicable $50,000

Total $300,000

115

Estimated Budget for all Tasks for Duration of Project

Table 3 summarizes the estimated budget for all project tasks throughout the duration of the project.

Table 3 – Estimated Budget for all Project Tasks

Task Subtask Budget


1.1 – Background $15,000

1.2 – Problem Statement $35,000

1.3 – Numeric Targets $70,000

1.4 – Source Analysis $70,000

1.5 – Linkage Analysis $80,000

1.6 – WLAs and LAs $65,000

1.7 – Implementation Plan $110,000

1.8 – Monitoring Requirements $25,000

1.9 - References $10,000 Task 2 – Prepare Substitute Environmental Document To be determined $80,000

Task 3 – Prepare Economic Analyses To be determined $80,000

Task 4 – Establish Administrative Record To be determined $25,000

Task 5 – Prepare Final Documentation To be determined $70,000


Not applicable $70,000

Total $800,000

116

Draft Schedule for Completion of Entire Project

Table 4 summarizes the planned deadline for each task and identifies the entities anticipated to be primarily responsible for completion of the work. Tasks included in Task Order No. 1 have a specific deliverable date; tasks to be conducted under future task orders have estimated deliverable deadlines.

Table 4. Draft Schedule and Expected Responsibility for Execution of Entire Project

Task1 Description Deadline Key Responsibility

1.1 1st Draft of Chapter 1 of Technical Document (Introduction)

January 29, 2016 Risk Sciences / CDM Smith

1.2 1st Draft of Chapter 2 of Technical Document (Problem Statement)

February 26, 2016 CDM Smith / AMEC

1.3 1st Draft of Portion of Chapter 3 of Technical Document (Numeric Response Targets)

March 25, 2016

Tetra Tech / AMEC / Dr. Anderson

1.3 1st Draft of Portion of Chapter 3 of Technical Document (Numeric Causal Targets) April 29, 2016 CDM Smith / Tetra Tech /

Dr. Anderson

1.4 1st Draft of Chapter 4 of Technical Document (Source Analysis) May 27, 2016 CDM Smith

1.1, 1.2 2nd Draft of Chapters 1 & 2 of Technical Document (Introduction & Problem Statement)

May 27, 2016 Same as 1st Draft

1.2 2nd Draft of Chapter 3 of Technical Document (Numeric Targets) July 29, 2016 Same as 1st Draft

1.3 2nd Draft of Chapter 4 of Technical Document (Source Analysis)

August 26, 2016 Same as 1st Draft

1.5 1st Draft of Chapter 5 of Technical Document (Linkage Analysis)

September 30, 2016

CDM Smith / Tetra Tech / Dr. Anderson

1.5 2nd Draft of Chapter 5 of Technical Document (Linkage Analysis)

November 2016 Same as 1st Draft

4 1st Compilation of Administrative Record (work completed to date) January 2017 CG Environmental

1.6 1st Draft of Chapter 6 of Technical Document (WLA & LA) February 2017 CDM Smith

1.6 2nd Draft of Chapter 6 of Technical Document (WLA & LA) April 2017 Same as 1st Draft

1.7 1st Draft of Chapter 7 of Technical Document (Implementation Plan) June 2017 CDM Smith / Tetra Tech

1.8 1st Draft of Chapter 8 of Technical Document (Monitoring Requirements) July 2017 AMEC

1.7 2nd Draft of Chapter 7 of Technical Document (Implementation Plan) August 2017 Same as 1st Draft

1.8 2nd Draft of Chapter 8 of Technical Document (Monitoring Requirements)

September 2017 Same as 1st Draft

1.9 Bibliography and References Chapter of Technical Document October 2017 CG Environmental

117

Table 4. Draft Schedule and Expected Responsibility for Execution of Entire Project

Task1 Description Deadline Key Responsibility

1 (all subtasks) Final Version of TMDL Technical Document November

2017 Same as 1st and 2nd Drafts

4 2nd Compilation of Administrative Record (work completed to date)

December 2017 CG Environmental

2 1st Draft of Substitute Environmental Document (SED) January 2018 CDM Smith

3 1st Draft of Economic Analysis February 2018 Risk Science / CDM Smith / Tetra Tech

RB Independent Scientific Peer Review March 2018 Regional Board

2 Final Version of SED and CEQA Checklist April 2018 CDM Smith

3 Final Version of Economic Analysis May 2018 Risk Science / CDM Smith / Tetra Tech

RB Regional Board Staff Report June 2018 Regional Board

4 3rd Compilation of Administrative Record (work completed to date) June 2018 CG Environmental

5 Basin Plan Amendment Package July 2018 CDM Smith Team

RB Regional Board Workshop and Request for Public Comments August 2018 Regional Board

RB Prepare Response to Public Comments submitted to Regional Board October 2018 Regional Board

RB Regional Board Hearing to Consider Adopting Basin Plan Amendment

November 2018 Regional Board

4 4th Compilation of Administrative Record (for submission to State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB])

January 2019 CG Environmental

RB Prepare Response to Public Comments Submitted to SWRCB May 2019 Regional Board

RB SWRCB Hearing for Basin Plan Amendment July 2019 Regional Board

5 5th and Final Compilation of Administrative Record (for submission to Office of Administrative Law [OAL])

August 2019 CG Environmental

RB Submit Basin Plan Amendment and Administrative Record to OAL

September 2019 Regional Board

RB OAL Review Complete December 2019 Regional Board

RB Submit Basin Plan Amendment to U.S. EPA for Review and Approval January 2020 Regional Board

1 Numbers reference tasks to be completed under the General Services Agreement; RB refers to tasks that will be completed by Santa Ana Water Board staff.

118

LESJWA BOARD MEMORANDUM NO. 782 DATE: December 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mark R. Norton, P.E., Authority Administrator RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors receive and file a draft outline for the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report. BACKGROUND On June 30, 2016, the MS4 Permittees Comprehensive Nutrient Reduction Plan for Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake requires that Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report be submitted to the Regional Board. This document is also a requirement of the Agricultural Nutrient Management Plan and is tied to the TMDL compliance affecting the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force. Attached is an outline for the report as prepared by Tim Moore of Risk Sciences. Section 2 of this report also will serve as an effectiveness monitoring report, previously discussed, for the Canyon Lake Alum Application, and will be prepared by Tim Moore of Risk Science with support from AMEC. Risk Science has indicated that this work can be completed under his existing contract with LESJWA and a draft report completed by the end of March 2016. In order to address past concerns raised by the LESJWA Board regarding alum applications and its effects, shown below is a listing of those concerns.

1. Explain how the brown algae showed up in the East Bay, why algal toxicity issues arose and whether we will be seeing more of this, and how it will be addressed in the future.

2. What are the impacts, if any, of the alum and sediment from Canyon Lake potentially being resuspended and going down to Lake Elsinore, particularly under a high storm event? Are there any toxicity issues with alum application to the benthic layer in Lake Elsinore?

In response to these concerns, Tim Moore of Risk Science indicated those concerns will be addressed and provided the following: 1) The discussion of issues surrounding pros and cons of the alum application project will occur in Section II-C-1. The report will evaluate overall effectiveness, lessons learned and future outlook/plans for each of the major implementation projects. 2) The potential use and impacts of alum or phoslock applications to Lake Elsinore will be discussed under Section IV-B-2 (“Potential New Projects”). When asked why the Solar Bee demonstration project and the Dredging project were included and the HOS project was not, the following response was provided. Dredging and Solar Bees were included because these were past projects intended to improve water quality and we should evaluate them from that perspective. There is no plan to expand or extend these projects in the future and we will explain why in the report. The “floating islands” installed at Lake

119

Elsinore also may be briefly discussed. The report will recount the failures and well as the successes in order to demonstrate that the overall level of effort has been quite significant. The HOS project will be discussed in Section IV-B-2 ("Potential New Projects"); Other projects likely to be discussed in this section include: a) alum or phoslock applications to Lake Elsinore, b) possible algaecide applications in either lake, c) additional use of recycled water in LE, d) increasing circulation of E. Bay of CL. Mr. Moore stated the principle focus of the report is on evaluating the overall effectiveness of all prior projects. The discussion of potential future projects will be much more limited in this particular report. That topic will be covered in greater depth in the CNRP Revision Report scheduled for submission next November 2016 and in the revised TMDL itself. In addition, as part of the Prop 84 grant requirements, LESJWA will prepare a final report summarizing the overall effectiveness of the alum application at the end of the project for the grant. Because of the delay in receiving grant funds and the decision to do two additional alum applications in 2016, the final grant summary will now be prepared in the spring of 2017. The 2017 report will focus exclusively on the alum application in Canyon Lake. The content from Section 2 of the 2016 report, with updated tables and graphs, will be used to prepare the 2017 effectiveness monitoring report for the grant submission. RESOURCES IMPACT All staff time associated with the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report has been budgeted under the LE/CL TMDL Task Force budget that also is shown in the LESJWA budget. MN/dm Attachment: 1. Report Outline

120

Outline for the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Interim Progress Report

I. Background

A) TMDL Requirements

B) LECL TMDL Task Force Efforts (special studies and plans)

C) MS4-CNRP & AgNMP Requirements

II. Canyon Lake

A) Response Targets

1) Chlorophyll-a (Interim & Final)

(a) Field sampling data

(b) Satellite data

2) Dissolved Oxygen (Interim & Final)

(a) Water quality data

(b) Fish kill data

B) Causal Targets

1) Phosphorus (Interim & Final; Load Allocation and Wasteload Allocation)

2) Nitrogen (Interim & Final; Load Allocation and Wasteload Allocation)

3) Ammonia (Final Only)

C) Implementation Assessment (effectiveness evaluation, lessons learned & project outlook)

1) Alum Application Program

2) Dredging Project

3) Solar Bee Demonstration Project

4) Other Significant Watershed BMPs

121

III. Lake Elsinore

A) Response Targets

1) Chlorophyll-a (Interim & Final)

(a) Field sampling data

(b) Satellite data

2) Dissolved Oxygen (Interim & Final)

(a) Water quality data

(b) Fish kill data

B) Causal Targets

1) Phosphorus (Interim & Final; Load Allocation and Wasteload Allocation)

2) Nitrogen (Interim & Final; Load Allocation and Wasteload Allocation)

3) Ammonia (Final Only)

C) Implementation Assessment (effectiveness evaluation, lessons learned & project outlook)

1) Lake Elsinore Aeration and Mixing System (LEAMS)

2) Fishery Management Program

(a) Carp removal project

(b) Fish stocking project

3) Lake Level Stabilization Program

(a) Recycled water

(b) Island wells

4) Other Significant Watershed BMPs

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

A) Compliance assessment and evaluation of progress toward attainment of WQ standards

B) Program implementation

1) Suggested modifications to existing projects

2) Potential new project initiatives

3) Prospective revisions to the TMDL, CNRP or Ag-NMP

122



SUBJECT: Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Project – CEQA Compliance

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Mark R. Norton, P.E., Authority Administrator

RECOMMENDATION The Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake Nutrient TMDL Technical Advisory Committee and LESJWA staff recommend that the Board of Directors ratify the December 2, 2015 CEQA approval of the Canyon Lake Alum Application, and file a Notice of Determination to implement future alum dosing in Canyon Lake starting in 2016, with funding from Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant funds.

DISCUSSION Extending the Canyon Lake Alum Treatment project to include additional alum applications in Canyon Lake intended to use available Proposition 84, Round 2 grant funding (estimated at $170,000) requires an update to the existing 2013 CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

At the request of Stakeholders of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, Tom Dodson and Associates was tasked to update the 2013 MND to include the following minor modifications:

1) The extension of the pilot alum application program in Canyon Lake for the next 10 years.

2) Expand the area of alum treatment to include the area immediately above the north causeway at theconfluence between the San Jacinto River and Canyon Lake.

On December 2, 2015, the City of Canyon Lake City Council, serving as the lead CEQA agency on the Canyon Lake Alum Application project, approved Addendum No. 1 to the MND for the Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Project.

LESJWA is serving as a responsible agency for the future applications under CEQA. By ratification of the CEQA approval and the filing of the Notice of Determination, LESJWA is stating that it concurs with the findings of the document.

This action ensures that alum applications at Canyon Lake can continue and that grant funding available to conduct this work can continue to be used.

BACKGROUND In July 2012, LESJWA submitted a grant proposal to SAWPA for funding of the Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Project under the Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program Round 2. Although the grant program is administered ultimately by the CA Department of Water Resources, SAWPA is the designated IRWM region for the Santa Ana River Watershed. In February 2013, staff reported that the LESJWA grant proposal was approved for $500,000 by the SAWPA Project Selection Committee, the OWOW Steering Committee, and the SAWPA Commission. In September 2014, the DWR/SAWPA agreement for the Proposition 84 IRWM Implementation grant funding was executed and a subsequent SAWPA/LESJWA Agreement for grant funding was executed on October 16, 2014.

123

The City of Canyon Lake served as the lead CEQA agency on the Canyon Lake Alum Application. This entailed the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to cover the five alum applications scheduled for Canyon Lake, which recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be issued.

Due to delays in execution by the State, only three of the five applications were considered grant eligible before the pilot project was completed. Since grant funds are still eligible to be spent for the alum application in Canyon Lake, the grant funds can be used for additional applications in 2016. The specific months for future alum applications will be dependent upon storm events and lake quality conditions. A Technical Committee composed of staff representatives from all the LESJWA member agencies will meet prior to scheduling the next alum application date to ensure appropriate alum application effectiveness and logistics.

The local minimum match for the LESJWA Canyon Lake improvement grant is 25% and past expenses related to the project are eligible. Based on past monitoring and studies conducted in support of Canyon Lake improvements, the local match requirement has been met.

RESOURCES IMPACT All staff administration time for the RFP has been budgeted under the LE/CL TMDL Task Force budget that is also shown in the LESJWA budget.

MN:dm

Attachment: 1. NOD to implement Alum dosing in Canyon Lake, as part of Proposition 84 grant-funded Phase 1Canyon Lake

Hybrid Treatment Project

124

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

To: Office of Planning and Research From: Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Watershed Authority (LESJWA) Sacramento, CA 95814 c/o SAWPA

and 11615 Sterling Avenue Riverside County, County Clerk Riverside, CA 92503 2724 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92507

Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

Addendum No. 1 to Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Process -- Phase 1; Consideration of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, inclusive of the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA) of Continuing to Treat Canyon Lake with Alum as Part of the Phase 2 of the Hybrid Treatment Process Project Title

SCH #2013041082 Mark R. Norton (951) 354-4221 State Clearinghouse Number Responsible Agency Contact Person Area code/Telephone/Extension

Project Location: The proposed project activities will take place at Canyon Lake, which is located within Riverside County, and is within the City of Canyon Lake. The proposed project extension will take place in the same area identified in the 2013 Initial Study, with the exception of one new area of consideration as described above. The alum will be stored at the lake near the Main Lake or East Bay Boat Launch Area.

Project Description: In 2013 the City prepared an Initial Study that evaluated the proposed in-lake management activities that were designed to reduce excessive algae growth by reducing phosphorus concentrations in Canyon Lake. Too much algae tends to deplete dissolved oxygen levels in the water column that, in turn, can lead to significant fish kills in the lake. Excess algae is also unsightly and interferes with recreation in and on the lake. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient that acts like a fertilizer for growing algae. Alum forms a chemical bond with phosphorus that renders it inert and no longer able to grow algae.

This addendum is being prepared in response to the stakeholders desire to extend the pilot alum applica-tion program in the lake for the next 10 years. After considering the available options for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding this proposed extension of the alum treatment at Canyon Lake, the City and stakeholders concluded that compiling an Addendum to the 2013 MND would be the most appropriate way to comply with CEQA for the proposed extension of the alum treatment into the future.

Thus, the proposed minor modification to the previously approved project is:


2) Expand the area of alum treatment to include the area immediately above the north causeway at theconfluence between the San Jacinto River and Canyon Lake (see Fig. 7).

125

3) Provide additional flexibility to apply alum at times and under water quality conditions that will assurethe highest level of effectiveness and the lowest potential for any unintended impacts. Greaterflexibility in timing is a new mitigation measure that was developed based on knowledge andexperience gained from the pilot program.

4) Provide additional flexibility to make alum applications in the Main Body and in the East Bay ofCanyon Lake at different times of year. The decision as to when and how the alum will be applied willbe made by the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force after consulting with the alumapplication contractor.

5) Clarify that the program allows, but does not require, stakeholders to make up to two alumapplications annually. And, if the alum applications for the Main Body and the East Bay occur atdifferent times, this may result in up to a total of six application events on the lake (e.g. 2 x MainBody, 2 x San Jacinto/Lake interface, and 2 x East Bay).

The documentation in this Addendum, combined with the adopted 2013 MND and Initial Study, will serve as the basis for this second tier environmental review of the LESJWA proposed continued alum treatment program. The alum treatment will continue to be carried out in the Main Body and East Bay portions of the lake and will also be expanded to the transition area from the San Jacinto River. Through satellite monitoring, this new area of consideration has been identified as containing elevated Chlorophyll-a concentrations, and thus has the potential to benefit from alum application. This transition area is hydrologically and biologically similar to the shallow East Bay at the confluence between Salt Creek and Canyon Lake. Therefore, the effects of any alum application in the expanded area are expected to be similar to those observed in the East Bay.

This is to advise that LESJWA has approved the above described project on □ Lead Agency ■ Responsible Agency

and has made the following determination regarding the above described project: (Date)

1. The project [ ☐ w ill ■ will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ■ An Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2013041082) was prepared for this

project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.3. All mitigation measures from the original Mitigated Negative Declaration [■ were ☐ w ere not] w ill

be implemented in accordance with the approval of the project.4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ■ was ☐ was not] adopted for this project.

This is to certify that the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and record of project approval is available to the general public at:

LESJWA, c/o SAWPA, 11615 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503

Signature Title Date

126

ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CANYON LAKE HYBRID

TREATMENT PROCESS – PHASE 1 (SCH#2013041082)

Prepared for:

City of Canyon Lake 31516 Railroad Canyon Road

Canyon Lake, CA 92587 (951) 244-2955

Prepared by:

Tom Dodson & Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue

San Bernardino, California 92405 (909) 882-3612

Original Initial Study Adopted: April 2013 Addendum Compilation Completed: October 2015

127

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 1

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1A. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 B. Background ..................................................................................................... 3

III. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM ...................................................... 4

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION ................... 5

V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 11

VI. REVIEW AUTHORITY.............................................................................................. 12

VII. CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................... 12

FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Site Location Figure 3 Vicinity Map of Canyon Lake Figure 4 Bathymetry Map of Central Body of Canyon Lake Figure 5 East Bay Boat Launch Area Figure 6 Main Lake Boat Launch Area Figure 7 Satellite Assessment of Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Risk Sciences

128

ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CANYON LAKE HYBRID

TREATMENT PROCESS – PHASE 1 (SCH#2013041082)

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

i) Project Title: Consideration of the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, inclusive of the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA) of Continuing to Treat Canyon Lake with Alum as Part of the Phase 2 of the Hybrid Treatment Process.

ii) Lead Agency Name City of Canyon Lakeand Address: 31516 Railroad Canyon Road

Canyon Lake, CA 92587

iii) Contact: Habib Motlagh Phone: (951) 244-2955 E-Mail: [email protected]

iv) Project Location: This Addendum addresses the extension to a previously approved project that would allow the stakeholders of Canyon Lake to continue to apply alum treatment to Canyon Lake’s Main Body and East Bay, as well as a new area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River—with alum up to twice a year for the next 10 years. The proposed project activities will take place at Canyon Lake, which is located within Riverside County, and is within the City of Canyon Lake (Reference Figures 1 and 2, Regional Location and Site Location Maps).

The proposed project extension will take place in the same area identified in the 2013 Initial Study, with the exception of one new area of consideration as described above. The alum will be stored at the lake near the Main Lake or East Bay Boat Launch Area as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction

This document is prepared as an Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted by the City of Canyon Lake in April 2013 (SCH No. 2013041082). In 2013 the City prepared an Initial Study that evaluated the proposed in-lake management activities that were designed to reduce excessive algae growth by reducing phosphorus concentrations in Canyon Lake. Too much algae tends to deplete dissolved oxygen levels in the water column that, in turn, can lead to significant fish kills in the lake. Excess algae is also

129

unsightly and interferes with recreation in and on the lake. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient that acts like a fertilizer for growing algae. Alum forms a chemical bond with phosphorus that renders it inert and no longer able to grow algae.

In 2013, the City of Canyon Lake prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the environmental effects of a pilot alum application program in Canyon Lake. During the pilot program, 840 tons of alum was applied to Canyon Lake in five separate events (Sept., 2013, Feb., 2014, Sept., 2014, April, 2015 and Sept., 2015). The Initial Study states that after the five pilot applications were completed, the Task Force agencies will evaluate water quality data from the lake to determine whether the alum was working as intended, to confirm that there were no adverse environmental effects, and to decide whether additional applications were necessary.

Preliminary water quality monitoring data confirms that the average phosphorus concentrations have declined significantly and by mid-2015, the Main Body of Canyon Lake was already meeting Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) target for total phosphorus (0.1 mg/L) five years ahead of the regulatory deadline. And, by the fall of 2015, the East Bay had reached this goal as well.

Measuring concentrations of Chlorophyll-a is indicative of the algae levels of the lake. Since, 2011-12, average annual Chlorophyll-a concentrations in the Main Body have fallen 27% in the Main Body of the lake and 37% in the East Bay. This, in turn, has significantly improved water clarity. Algae levels are now meeting the Interim Response Target specified in the TMDL (e.g. annual average <40 ug/L) in the Main Body of the lake. However, the lake is not yet meeting the Final Response Target (e.g. annual <25 ug/L) and additional alum applications are needed.

This addendum is being prepared in response to the stakeholders desire to extend the pilot alum application program in the lake for the next 10 years. After considering the available options for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding this proposed extension of the alum treatment at Canyon Lake, the City concluded that compiling an Addendum to the 2013 MND would be the most appropriate way to comply with CEQA for the proposed extension of the alum treatment into the future.

Thus, the proposed minor modification to the previously approved project is:


2) Expand the area of alum treatment to include the area immediately above the northcauseway at the confluence between the San Jacinto River and Canyon Lake (see Fig. 7).

3) Provide additional flexibility to apply alum at times and under water quality conditions thatwill assure the highest level of effectiveness and the lowest potential for any unintendedimpacts. Greater flexibility in timing is a new mitigation measure that was developedbased on knowledge and experience gained from the pilot program.

4) Provide additional flexibility to make alum applications in the Main Body and in the EastBay of Canyon Lake at different times of year. The decision as to when and how the alumwill be applied will be made by the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Forceafter consulting with the alum application contractor.

5) Clarify that the program allows, but does not require, stakeholders to make up to two alumapplications annually. And, if the alum applications for the Main Body and the East Bay

130

occur at different times, this may result in up to a total of six application events on the lake (e.g. 2 x Main Body, 2 x San Jacinto/lake interface, and 2 x East Bay).

The documentation in this Addendum, combined with the adopted 2013 MND and Initial Study, will serve as the basis for this second tier environmental review of the City’s proposed continued alum treatment program. The alum treatment will continue to be carried out in the Main Body and East Bay portions of the lake and will also be expanded to the transition area from the San Jacinto River. Through satellite monitoring, this new area of consideration has been identified as containing elevated Chlorophyll-a concentrations, and thus has the potential to benefit from alum application (see Figure 7). This transition area is hydrologically and biologically similar to the shallow East Bay at the confluence between Salt Creek and Canyon Lake. Therefore, the effects of any alum application in the expanded area are expected to be similar to those observed in the East Bay.

No other changes to the initial project are envisioned at this time.

Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Canyon Lake will serve as the Lead Agency for the proposed project extension of the alum treatment at Canyon Lake. This is because the City has agreed to serve as the CEQA Lead Agency on behalf of the stakeholders. The City works alongside the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, inclusive of the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watersheds Authority (LESJWA), which serves as the Task Force administrator. As part of its decision making process, the City is required to review and consider all potential environmental effects that could result from modifying the original project. The City has compiled this Addendum as the basis for making a new CEQA environmental determination for this extension to the originally approved project.

B. Background

Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared in order to determine whether the proposed extension of the Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Process Alum treatment program, summarized above, would result in conditions that would require a subsequent environmental document to be prepared because of changes in circumstances or new or additional adverse environmental impacts. This Addendum also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was approved in 2013. This examination includes an analysis in accordance with the provisions of Sections 15164 and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which outline the criteria and procedures for preparing an Addendum and conducting a second-tier environmental evaluation based on a previous environmental document, in this case the 2013 Initial Study/MND.

Also pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s environmental review of the proposed project modifications is limited to examining the environmental effects associated with the physical changes in the environment from implementing the modified project in comparison to the approved and implemented project. This narrow focus is due to the fact that the previously certified MND has already addressed the environmental impacts of implementing Phase 1 of the Canyon Lake Hybrid Treatment Process through the use of alum. As permitted by CEQA Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines the 2013 Initial Study and MND, SCH No. 2013041082, are hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Addendum evaluation. A copy of this document is available to review at the City of Canyon Lake’s office located at 31516 Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Lake, California 92587.

131

III. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM

This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the current CEQA Statutes and Guidelines for implementing CEQA. CEQA Section 15164 includes the following procedures for the preparation and use of an Addendum:

• (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previouslycertified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditionsdescribed any of the conditions in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of asubsequent EIR have occurred.

• (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in orattached to the Final EIR or adopted negative declaration.

• (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR or adoptednegative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

• (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant toSection 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's requiredfindings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported bysubstantial evidence.

If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after certification of an EIR or MND, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)) When only minor technical changes or additions to the approved Negative Declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(b))

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;

132

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION

Following the request from the stakeholders to continue the alum application in Canyon Lake for the next 10 years, the City, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force and LESJWA considered the options for CEQA compliance with this second-tier decision under the adopted and implemented Initial Study and MND. After considering the available compliance alter-natives, a decision was made by the City, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, and LESJWA to recommend that the City adopt an Addendum to the MND as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for the project modifications.

Based on the information available for this second tier evaluation, an addendum was prepared to provide the appropriate level of evaluation for the second Phase of the alum application in Canyon Lake as summarized in the preceding text. The purpose of this Addendum is to assess the related potential environmental impacts that would result from the extension of this project and the resulting changes when compared to the impact forecast contained in the 2013 Initial Study and MND. The following evaluation provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts in relation to the facts and findings contained in the 2013 Initial Study and MND incorporated by reference in the preceding sections. The following conclusions were developed regarding potential impacts from approval and implementation of the proposed project modifications and extension.

Note that a review of the changes in environmental circumstances over the past two and a half years since the Initial Study and MND were adopted indicates that no major changes have occurred in general land use within the project area.

After discussions with the City, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force, and LESJWA, a review of the environmental conditions that exist at Canyon Lake at the present time was conducted. The findings of the review of the conditions of the lake following the initial 5 alum applications are described above in the Project Description. In short, both the East Bay and the Main Body of Canyon Lake are responding well to the alum treatment; both increased oxygen levels and lake clarity, as well as lower phosphorus levels, have been recorded in the lake.

a. POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

133

animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or No New Information Requiring Preparation of an additional environmental document – Under the original project, as described in the 2013 MND and Initial Study, the entirety of Canyon Lake and the potential effects of the alum application were evaluated and approved. The project’s implementation has been successful and there have been no significant adverse effects on the Canyon Lake environment since the alum applications commenced. Continuing to make up to two alum applications to Canyon Lake for the next ten years is not projected to cause any further changes to the environment that were not envisioned or discussed in the original project.

The biological resources analysis in the 2013 Initial Study is provided in Chapter 4 of the Initial Study. No further biological studies have been conducted; thus the analysis in the 2013 Initial Study will be used as the data for this Addendum henceforth. Though no formal analysis of the fish population in Canyon Lake, the stakeholders have received comments from the lake users that the fish population seems to be comparable to or better than pre-alum applications. This possibility was described in the 2013 Initial Study by Dr. John Reuter—a limnologist associate familiar with the alum applications to aquatic environments to manage water quality—discussed the potential outcomes to the ecosystem when treated with alum. In most cases of other lakes treated with alum, the fish population and overall lake ecosystems have not been adversely affected by the alum application in the long term, in fact, the potential for the ecosystem of the lake to become healthier exists as the oxygen in the lake increases. Additionally, no adverse effects to the fish population and lake ecosystem have been identified as a result of the alum application. In fact, the residents that use the lake for fishing have noticed that it is easier to spot fish because the lake is clearer and the bass population seems to be growing. Based on the original biology data in the 2013 Initial Study, no new significant adverse biological resource impacts will occur from applying the alum to Canyon Lake twice a year for the next 10 years.

The cultural resources evaluation in the 2013 Initial Study is provided in Chapter 5 of the Initial Study. No further cultural studies have been deemed necessary to conduct because the environment has not changed. The Initial Study found that there would be no cultural impacts that would result from implementing the project, and no impacts are projected to arise from the implementation of the Addendum. Thus, based on the data in the Initial Study, no new significant adverse cultural resource impacts will result from continuing to apply alum to Canyon Lake twice a year for the next 10 years.

In Conclusion, relative to the biological and cultural impacts forecast in the Initial Study, no significant adverse change or affect is forecast to occur in approving this Addendum and implementing the proposed extension of the alum application into the future. No mitigation is required to support the implementation of the proposed project extension.

b) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, butcumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effectsof a project are considerable when reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project.)

Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or No New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Those project-related environmental resources or issues subject to cumulative effects include the following: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation,

134

Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The Initial Study concluded that most of the above environmental issues would not experience any significant project specific or cumulative adverse environmental impacts, in most cases with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 2013 Initial Study. No issues were identified in the Initial Study as having significant unavoidable adverse effects or cumulatively considerable impacts. Based on the analyses in support of this Addendum, implementation of the proposed project extension will not result in cumulative impacts any greater than already discussed.

Aesthetics: Aesthetic issues are discussed in Chapter 1 of the Initial Study. The future alum treatments will be applied in the same manner as defined in the Initial Study, with the exception of being applied to a new area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River. The proposed project extension does not propose any new above ground structures and the activities to support the project extension will occur within the original project area at Canyon Lake as envisioned in the 2013 Initial Study. There are no designated scenic highways in proximity to the project site and all scenic resources will remain in their present condition, or better with the implementation of the proposed project extension. Since the implementation of the 2013 Initial Study, the water at Canyon Lake has been notably clearer as a result of the alum application and thus is more aesthetically pleasing. The proposed project extension will not require implementation of any mitigation measures. Thus, the proposed project extension is not forecast to negatively alter any aesthetic or visual impacts and no cumulatively considerable impacts will result from the modified project.

Agricultural Resources: Agricultural resources are discussed in Chapter 2 of the 2013 Initial Study. The project area of potential effects did not contain any agricultural resources and none will be affected by the proposed project extension. No mitigation measures were proposed and none are required for the modified project. No cumulative adverse farmland impacts can result from implementing the modified project.

Air Quality: Air quality issues are discussed in Chapter 3 of the 2013 Initial Study. The Initial study notes that projects such as the proposed Canyon Lake treatment project do not directly relate to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing water quality management activities. Emission calculations were based on the activities required to facilitate the alum application in the lake twice a year in the Main Body and East Bay. The proposed project extension will alter the emissions calculated in the Initial Study as a result of the application to a new part of the lake. More alum will need to be transported to Canyon Lake, which could result in no more than two additional trucks per treatment than originally envisioned in the 2013 Initial Study and as a result, the emissions generated will increase slightly. Though more areas of the lake are being treated, the additional emissions will not significantly affect the air quality in the Canyon Lake area as characterized in Table III-6 of the 2013 Initial Study. With the implementation of the existing air quality mitigation measures, the extended project daily and annual activities will remain below a cumulatively considerable level of impact.

Hydrology/Water Quality: The hydrology and water quality (water) issues are discussed in Chapter 9 of the 2013 Initial Study. The Initial Study proposed a number of mitigation measures that require the implementation of Best Management Practices that will need to be extended into the future for future alum application. No changes from the original hydrology and water quality assessments are predicted to occur with the proposed project extension. Data compiled by Risk Sciences suggests that the water quality at Canyon Lake has improved as a result of the alum application, in that the average phosphorus concentrations have declined significantly in both the Main Body and East Bay of the lake, refer to Appendix 1. Thus, with continued alum

135

application to both the Main body and the East Bay, as well as the application to the transition area from the San Jacinto River, the proposed project extension has no potential to substantially alter the cumulative impact findings in the Initial Study regarding hydrology or water quality.

Land Use and Planning: Land use issues are discussed in Chapter 10 of the 2013 Initial Study. The purpose of the proposed project extension will continue in the same manner as the original approved project, which is to continue to treat excess phosphorus in Canyon Lake with alum to create a healthier lake ecosystem over time. The land uses remain the same within the existing project area and the overall community; so no adverse impacts to or conflicts with existing land use issues can occur as a result of the proposed project extension. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to substantially alter the cumulative impact findings in the 2013 Initial Study regarding area land use.

Mineral Resources: Mineral resources are discussed in Chapter 11 of the 2013 Initial Study. No mineral resource mining occurs within the project area and the application of the alum treatment to Canyon Lake does not affect mineral resource values or availability for the future. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cumulatively effect mineral resources as no mineral resource values occur within the project area.

Noise: The noise issue is discussed in Chapter 12 of the 2013 Initial Study. The evaluation of the noise generated by the original project concluded that alum transportation and application activities create a less than significant impact based on the implementation of several mitigation measures, including limiting these activities to daylight hours. The proposed project extension will operate in the same noise environment as defined in 2013 as no other new noise sources will be generated by the operating activities. The application of the alum at a new location on the lake could potentially generate additional noise impacts. The noise impacts could occur from both additional boats on the lake in a new area and from the additional one to two truck trips per alum application. Implementing the required mitigations measures can mitigate these new noise impacts; thus, these additional sources of noise are not forecast to rise to the level of significant impact, either site specific or cumulative. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cause cumulatively considerable noise impacts within the project area.

Population and Housing: The population and housing issues are discussed in Chapter 13 of the 2013 Initial Study. There was no direct or indirect effect on population and housing from implementing the original project and there will be no population or housing effects from implementing the proposed project extension. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cumulatively effect population or housing issues within the project area.

Public Services: The public services issues are discussed in Chapter 14 of the 2013 Initial Study. There were no direct or indirect effects on schools, recreation/parks, or other public facilities from implementing the original project, and there will be no potential effects from implementing the proposed project extension. The impact to fire protection and police protection in the 2013 Initial Study were considered less than significant because of the limited duration and nature of the proposed project. As stated in the original project, liquid alum is not flammable, but can decompose in a fire and release toxic vapor; however, the fire risk associated with this chemical is minimal, and therefore the impacts to fire protection from implementing the proposed project extension are less than significant. Also, because the proposed project extension will operate on the same annual timeline (twice a year), impacts to police protection generated from criminal activity are not expected to deviate from the original project’s findings. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cumulatively effect public service or recreation issues within the project area.

136

Recreation: The recreation issues are discussed in Chapter 15 of the 2013 Initial Study. There were no direct or indirect effects on recreation from implementing the original project and there will be no recreation effects from implementing the proposed project extension. The main goal of the proposed project extension is to continue to enhance the physical and aesthetic qualities of the lake. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cumulatively effect recreation issues within the project area.

Transportation/Traffic: The transportation and traffic issues are discussed in Chapter 16 of the 2013 Initial Study. There were minor direct and indirect effects on transportation/traffic issues from implementing the original project, as a minimal number of truck deliveries would carry the alum to Canyon Lake twice a year before the date of application. Under the proposed project extension creates a potential need for a maximum of two trucks trips per event may be required. This increase in truck trips is considered less than significant as the proposed project extension will adhere to a maximum of 15 truck trips per day, spread throughout the day so as not to adversely disturb traffic circulation. The original project required mitigation through a traffic plan that should serve as a basis for the proposed project extension as the changes to operation activities are negligible. Thus, with implementation of the required mitigation measure to assure adequate traffic flow during each event, the proposed project extension has no potential to cause any cumulatively considerable adverse effects.

Utilities/Service Systems: The utility and service system issues are discussed in Chapter 17 of the 2013 Initial Study. The only potential utility or service system impact from implementing the proposed project extension is that there is a potential for a small amount of municipal wastes associates with short-term application activities. This impact was considered less than significant in the original project and should be considered less than significant under the proposed project extension. Aside from this minor impact, there were no direct or indirect effects on utilities and service systems from implementing the original project and there will be no utilities and service systems effects from implementing the proposed project extension. Thus, the proposed project extension has no potential to cumulatively effect utilities and service systems within the project area.

c) ADVERSE IMPACTS ON HUMANS: Does the project have environmental effects on humanbeings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or No New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Those project-related environmental resources or issues that pose a potential to have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings include the following: air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, and noise. The 2013 Initial Study concluded that none of the above environmental issues would experience any significant project specific or cumulative adverse environmental impacts to people. Based on the analysis in support of this Addendum, implementation of the proposed project extension, which extends alum treatment in the Main Body, East Bay, and transition area from the San Jacinto River at Canyon Lake twice a year for the next 10 years, will not result in effects on humans any greater than that identified in the 2013 Initial Study. This is because the scope of the proposed project extension remains comparable to what was evaluated in the 2013 Initial Study. Substantiation for this conclusion is provided in the following text.

Air Quality: Please refer to the Air Quality discussion presented above. An evaluation of regional air quality effects in the 2013 Initial Study indicated that operating emissions during the alum application events from the original project would not cause a significant impact on regional or local air quality with implementation of mitigation measures. The event emissions,

137

including the additional emissions from the proposed maximum of two additional truck trips to bring the additional alum to Canyon Lake necessary to treat the new treatment area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River—are below significance thresholds with the application of the air quality mitigation measures. These mitigation measures identified for the original project will be implemented for the proposed project extension and no significant adverse impacts to human beings will result from implementing the proposed project.

Geology and Soils: Geology and Soils are discussed in Chapter 6 of the 2013 Initial Study. The project area is in a seismically active region, but is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the proposed project extension’s operations will all be conducted outside of any structure, which greatly reduces any exposure to geologic events such as seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, landslides lateral spreading or subsidence. As with the original project, the proposed modified project has no potential for significant geological impacts on humans because the alum application events do not pose impacts on human health.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in Chapter 8 of the 2013 Initial Study. There is no evidence that identified any contaminated sites at or in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation was required in the 2013 Initial Study to control the potential effects of an accidental spill of alum during the application event. The proposed project extension will be required to implement these mitigation measures to prevent contamination during the application event. Implementation of the mitigation measures for the proposed project extension will ensure that no significant hazards or hazardous material impacts will occur. Thus, no potential exists to increase human impacts for this issue with implementation of the proposed project extension.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Please refer to the hydrology and water quality discussion presented above. An evaluation of the local hydrology and water quality effects in the 2013 Initial Study identified a potential for water quality impacts during the alum application that could be mitigated through the implementation of a number of mitigation measures to prevent any adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality less than significant. The proposed project extension will require these mitigation measures to be implemented in order to bring the impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Thus, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project extension has no potential to significantly increase the exposure to hydrology impacts or water quality impacts as characterized in the 2013 Initial Study. In fact, according to the water quality data provided by Risk Sciences (see Appendix 1), the water quality has improved, as expected, with the application of alum to Canyon Lake. No additional significant adverse direct effects on humans due to exposure to flood hazards or water quality degradation will result from implementing the proposed modified project.

Noise: Please refer to the noise discussion presented in the previous section. The evaluation of noise generated by the original project concluded that the alum application events would be less than significant based on the implementation of several mitigation measures, including limiting construction activities to daylight hours. No complaints from lake users or residents of the City of Canyon Lake have been logged regarding noise related to alum application and none are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed project extension. With the maximum of two additional truck trips per event, the noise levels are not expected to increase to an objectionable level. Thus, by implementing the required mitigation measures, no significant adverse direct or indirect noise effects on humans will result from implementing the proposed project extension.

138

Based on the above analysis, the implementation of the proposed project extension is not forecast to cause any significant direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. No major changes have occurred within the project’s environmental setting. In fact, since the original project’s implementation, many positive effects, such as water quality and water clarity, have been measured and observed. Thus, no new or additional adverse impacts to humans can occur from implementing the proposed project extension.

V. CONCLUSION

The information presented in the 2013 Initial Study—prepared for the City of Canyon Lake—was used as a basis for the analysis in this Addendum, updated with current information from the sources cited, referenced, and attached. Upon review of the 2013 Initial Study the information and findings contained in this Addendum and all of the supporting evidence, it is the conclusion of this Addendum that the potential adverse environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed project extension, as described in the Project Description of this document, will not cause any new or more significant impacts to the environment than described in the 2013 Initial Study and summarized in this Addendum. There are no new significant impacts that result from the proposed project extension, based on continuing to implement all of the mitigation measure commitments in the 2013 Initial Study. This Addendum provides an update of the activities of the proposed project extension caused by continuing to treat Canyon Lake’s Main Body and East Bay, as well as a new area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River—with alum twice a year for the next 10 years.

This Addendum provides the stakeholders and the City of Canyon Lake with the information substantiating the conclusion that the proposed project extension will not cause substantial physical changes in the environment that would require preparation and processing of a new negative declaration or a new environmental impact report. Such documentation would only be required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects from implementing the original project. The facts and findings cited above and provided in this Addendum allow the City to use an Addendum in accordance with Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines for this proposed project extension.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164, the Initial Study adopted in 2013, as updated with this Addendum, can be relied upon for documentation of the effects of the modified project on the environment. Because the changes in this project do not exceed the thresholds outlined in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no further analysis of the environmental impacts of the project is required in a Supplemental/Subsequent EIR or MND. The proposed project extension does not alter the conclusions contained in the Initial Study as adopted by the City in 2013. The analysis presented above of the changes and additions to the adopted project justifies the issuance of an Addendum to the City of Canyon Lake’s original 2013 Initial Study.

This Addendum to the Initial Study for the extension of alum applications to Canyon Lake’s Main Body and East Bay, as well as a new area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River—with alum twice a year for the next 10 years includes the changes or additions necessary to make the adopted environmental document adequate under the CEQA for the proposed project extension. This Addendum incorporates the adopted 2013 Initial Study, this document and all staff reports and information submitted to the decision-makers regarding environmental issues affected by the proposed modified project. This Addendum is intended as an additional information document to provide decision-makers and others, as appropriate, with

139

an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project extension.

VI. REVIEW AUTHORITY

The City of Canyon Lake serves as the CEQA lead agency for this project. It is recommended that an Addendum be adopted as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for the proposed extension of alum applications to Canyon Lake’s Main Body and East Bay, as well as a new area of consideration—the transition area from the San Jacinto River—with alum twice a year for the next 10 years.

VII. CERTIFICATION

140

FIGURES

141

FIGURE 1 Regional Location

Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants 142

FIGURE 2 Site Location


FIGURE 3 Vicinity Map of Canyon Lake

Source: PACE “Canyon Lake Hypolimnetic Oxygenation System Preliminary Design Phase 1 Report,” April 2011

Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants

Central Body

144

FIGURE 4 Bathymetry Map of Central Body of Canyon Lake

Source: PACE “Canyon Lake Hypolimnetic Oxygenation System Preliminary Design Phase 1 Report,” April 2011


FIGURE 5 East Bay Boat Launch Area


FIGURE 6 Main Lake Boat Launch Area


FIGURE 7 Satellite Assessment of Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake


APPENDIX 1

149

Justification for Extending and Expanding the Pilot Alum Application Program in Canyon Lake

In September of 2013, stakeholders in the San Jacinto River watershed initiated a pilot program to apply aluminum sulfate ("alum") in Canyon Lake. The purpose of this program was to evaluate the efficacy of using alum to reduce phosphorus concentrations lake and thereby prevent the growth of excess algae in the lake.

The pilot program was scheduled to apply approximately 840 tons of alum to the lake in five separate events spread over 25 months. The final alum application for the pilot program occurred in September of 2015.

Throughout the pilot project, routine water quality monitoring was performed to assess the effectiveness of the program. Each ton of phosphorus is expected to neutralize at least nine pounds of phosphorus. Therefore, the pilot alum application program sequestered more than 7,600 pounds of phosphorus. Preliminary water quality monitoring data confirms that average phosphorus concentrations have declined significantly. By mid-2015, the Main Body of Canyon Lake was already meeting the TMDL target for total phosphorus (0.1 mg/L) five years ahead of the regulatory deadline. And, the East Bay was almost there as well (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Long-term Trends for Average Phosphorus Concentrations in Canyon Lake

150

Reducing the bioavailable phosphorus concentrations in the water column is expected to reduce algae levels in the lake. Data from the water quality monitoring program confirms that this is, in fact, occurring (see Table 1). Compared to the two years prior to initiation of the pilot alum project, average Chlorophyll-a concentrations in the Main Body have fallen 27% in the Main Body and 37% in the East Bay. And, as a result water clarity is improving dramatically throughout Canyon Lake (see Fig. 2).

Table 1: Average Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake

Chlorophyll-a Main Body East Bay

2011-12 48 mg/L 81 mg/L

2014-15* 35 mg/L 51 mg/L

Algae Reduction 13 mg/L 30 mg/L

Pct. Improvement 27% 37%

*Jan., 2014 –May, 2015

Fig. 2: Long-term Trends for Water Clarity in Canyon Lake**

**Jan., 2007 – Aug., 2015.

151

It appears that both the Main Body and East Bayt of Canyon Lake are likely to meet the TMDL target of 40 mg/L for Chlorophyll-a by the end of 2015 (see Fig. 3). The annual average Chlorophyll-a concentration for the entire lake must be at or below 25 mg/L by December 31, 2020. Additional alum applications will be necessary to meet the final TMDL target.

Fig. 3: Long-term Trends for Average Annual Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake

Results from the pre- and post-project water quality monitoring program show that regular alum applications are significantly reducing average phosphorus and Chlorophyll-a concentrations in the lake while dramatically improving water clarity. However, there continue to be wide month-to-month variations in measured chlorophyll concentrations (see Fig. 4). This will likely continue to be the case until the cumulative effect of all alum applications is sufficient to offset the legacy load of phosphorus resident in the lake bottom sediments. Dr. Michael Anderson of U.C.-Riverside estimates that, to date, the pilot program has sequestered approximately 30% of the bioavailable phosphorus in Canyon Lake.

152

Fig. 4: Average Monthly Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake

Empirical evidence from the pilot project is sufficient to demonstrate that the program should be extended to allow, but not require, additional alum applications for the next 10 years. In addition, the program should be expanded to allow alum applications in the area where the San Jacinto River broadens and begins forming Canyon Lake. Recent satellite monitoring data shows this is the only area of Canyon Lake with elevated Chlorophyll-a concentrations and would likely benefit from alum applications similar to those that have been performed throughout the rest of the lake (see Fig. 4).

153

Fig. 4: Satellite Assessment of Chlorophyll-a Concentrations in Canyon Lake

154



SUBJECT: TMDL Task Force Status Report


FROM: Mark R. Norton, P.E., Authority Administrator

RECOMMENDATION That the Board of Directors receive and file this status report on the Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force.

BACKGROUND The Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force last met on December 2, 2015. The major actions of the Task Force included recommendations to the LESJWA Board to approve selection of CDM Smith, with Tetra Tech as a subconsultant, for the TMDL Revision based upon a competitive review process, and approve a change order with AMEC to provide technical support for the Interim TMDL Compliance Report and additional lake monitoring as required by the Regional Board for Lake Elsinore. The TMDL Revision work would commence in January 2016 and continue for the next three fiscal years. This work is important to reflect many changes that have occurred in land use, regulatory policies and practices, and modeling assumptions of the San Jacinto River Watershed. Funding for this work will come entirely from the Task Force and administered through LESJWA.

Work continues by Dr. Michael Anderson of UCR on his analysis of both lakes and answering questions that will be important to the TMDL revision. This study and its results will be key to future water quality improvements for both lakes over the coming five years. His final work results are expected to be shared in January 2016. For Lake Elsinore, the Task Force continues to work with the Lake Elsinore operators to work on a new operation and maintenance agreement for the Lake Elsinore aeration system. This will incorporate credits for funding support by the Riverside County MS4 permittees and others to meet their responsibility to control internal nutrient loads. Progress continues slowly as nutrient credits resulting from the Lake Elsinore aeration and mixing operations become better defined.

For Canyon Lake, the alum application evaluation phase of five applications over the past two and a half years concluded in late Sept. 2015. The Task Force and consultants recommend that progress in water quality at the lake continue as an ongoing practice for the future to control nutrients entering the lake from the upper watershed. An interim compliance report for Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore will be prepared before June 2016 with recommendations on how frequent future Canyon Lake alum applications should occur, the locations, and future alum dosages. Additionally, alternative strategies to deal with the East Bay algae issues also will be considered to ensure compliance as necessary with the nutrient TMDL for the entire Canyon Lake.

Grant funding from DWR and SAWPA, using the DWR Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management grant program, continues to flow into LESJWA and the Task Force. Some grant funding will be available after the 2½ year Canyon Lake alum application evaluation phase that can be applied to future Canyon Lake alum applications in 2016.

RESOURCES IMPACT All staff administration time applied to the TMDL Task Force comes from the TMDL budget and is funded only by the TMDL Task Force parties.

MN:dm

155

LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS · PDF fileLAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS...

Documents

Transcript of LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS · PDF fileLAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO WATERSHEDS...